Looks like the vast majority of those “real” pilots could care less about our plastic toys
Regardless, quads don’t ever have the right of way over manned aircraft. Unfortunately, if a quad and a manned aircraft cross paths,it’s the quad pilots responsibility. Who knows,maybe the chopper pilot overreacted and crashed because of his own inadequate abilities.....but then again, back to the right of way thing. I don’t see how a quad pilot wins in a scenario like that. Just happy. Those people were ok.I am not defending the drone pilot but how do we know the helicopter didn’t fly in the location of the drone. Automatically the drone pilot is blamed.
Do helicopter instructors have to fly in specific areas and if so do they have to register flight plans or can they fly were they want?
Looks like the vast majority of those “real” pilots could care less about our plastic toys
Better hope not. There’s already so many people who are just against the hobby for reasons they can’t quite conveyMaybe this is going to be a new trend...blame mystical drones for all aviation mishaps.
Looks like the vast majority of those “real” pilots could care less about our plastic toys
Brace your self, this may sting a little......
Not every pilot is a model human and incapable of lying to preserve his career.
Just like OJ didnt do it, just like bill clinton "never had sex with that woman" People will create a story to protect themselves from their mistakes. Even some pilots and engineers.
I didn't say it wasn't evidence (that's why I included it in my statement). I don't consider it strong and reliable information, especially coming from two individuals in a highly stressful situation, coupled with a strong motivation to not be completely forthcoming.
The potential to misremember details or information in such situations is well documented:
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony
Safety investigators do take pilots' recall into account but it is highly tempered with external evidence. Unless it is corroborated with other evidence, it should be given minimal weight. Quoting researchers in the field relays this idea better than I could in this limited space:
"When memory serves as evidence... there are a number of important limitations to the veracity of that evidence. This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced. Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to, what they already have stored in memory, their expectations, needs and emotional state. This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has already been stored in a person's long-term, autobiographical memory. What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event). Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience. Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst."
Mark L. Howe
Department of Psychology, Centre for Memory and Law, City University London, London, UK
Please someone out there help me understand. Would the gusts from the copters rotors not blow a small p4 away from its path ?
Exactly...I didn't say it wasn't evidence (that's why I included it in my statement). I don't consider it strong and reliable information, especially coming from two individuals in a highly stressful situation, coupled with a strong motivation to not be completely forthcoming.
The potential to misremember details or information in such situations is well documented:
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony
Safety investigators do take pilots' recall into account but it is highly tempered with external evidence. Unless it is corroborated with other evidence, it should be given minimal weight. Quoting researchers in the field relays this idea better than I could in this limited space:
"When memory serves as evidence... there are a number of important limitations to the veracity of that evidence. This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced. Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to, what they already have stored in memory, their expectations, needs and emotional state. This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has already been stored in a person's long-term, autobiographical memory. What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event). Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience. Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst."
Mark L. Howe
Department of Psychology, Centre for Memory and Law, City University London, London, UK
Most aircraft have Blackboxes why don’t they have a Dashcam type device? This would prove fault in most cases, I have a Dual camera dashcam System in my Vehicle and it records a lot of data speed, braking Gs, cornering Gs, gps location etc and it’s all time stamped in the files it creates. Some people that will lie about being at fault will not want these in there Vehicle or Aircraft, but most drones have at least one camera that could be recording. So why not manned aircraft? (And sorry if my spelling is off somewhere I just had my eyes dialeted at the eye dr can’t see anything up close very well till the drops wear off)
Most aircraft have Blackboxes why don’t they have a Dashcam type device? This would prove fault in most cases, I have a Dual camera dashcam System in my Vehicle and it records a lot of data speed, braking Gs, cornering Gs, gps location etc and it’s all time stamped in the files it creates. Some people that will lie about being at fault will not want these in there Vehicle or Aircraft, but most drones have at least one camera that could be recording. So why not manned aircraft? (And sorry if my spelling is off somewhere I just had my eyes dialeted at the eye dr can’t see anything up close very well till the drops wear off)
Really bad idea, and most aircraft do not have black boxes.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.