Have you seen this idiot

[DARKSeifer]

Well, that's a remote area with no one around and nothing was damaged except from the drone. Failing is a part of any hobby.

The crash could have been easily avoided if he hadn't turned off the OA sensors by using sport mode. Usually you want to avoid sport mode when long ranging, as it has worse battery economy than normal mode.

I never rely on the sensors and never get close to obstacles, but always leave them on (on brake mode) as a failsafe, just in case. I only turn them off momentarily by switching to sport if they start giving false positives at dusk/dawn.

If you fly long enough, you'll crash, it's just a matter of time.

Drone overregulation is not important and is just a bunch of crap to keep the people away from the hobby so the <120m alt airspace can be exploited by big corps. The only rule you need to follow is to stay away from uninvolved people (50-150 meters is enough).

That way, you reduce both the unwanted confrontations and the chance to hit anyone to basically zero. That includes people inside vehicles.

It is also a good practice to not invade manned airspace and keep away from controlled airspace... and simply don't behave like an idiot.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Not when I'm in sport mode and trees are in the area. And I also don't give a rip whether you believe it or not.

Didn't expect you to.

Also don't generally believe people engaged in virtue signaling.

Anyway, the point was simple... disparaging people as "idiots" for doing something like lose site of the drone or screen momentarily is, well, idiotic

 

[Jim622]

Didn't expect you to.

Also don't generally believe people engaged in virtue signaling.

Anyway, the point was simple... disparaging people as "idiots" for doing something like lose site of the drone or screen momentarily is, well, idiotic

So, if you do an idiot thing while making a YouTube video, do you post the video anyway, or don't post it because every agency in the country is already scrutinizing the industry. Posting irresponsible acts only gives the scrutinizing agencies more fuel to put more regulations on us.

 

[Tower669]

Maybe posting videos of things like that doesn't make you an idiot.

Maybe.

But providing evidence against yourself not only breaking the law, but stating your intent to break it alot, in a row, for as long as your battery will allow, and then making it public record, definitely puts the needle full green on the dumb-dumb guage.

Similar to the other dumb-dumbs who record themselves assaulting random people, and then fein astonishment when thier videos are used against them to prosecute.

I think all we're saying is, if you did something dumb(-dumb), keep it to yourself, or at the very least, bury the evidence. You're making us look stupid.

 

[mavic3usa]

Maybe posting videos of things like that doesn't make you an idiot.

Maybe.

But providing evidence against yourself not only breaking the law, but stating your intent to break it alot, in a row, for as long as your battery will allow, and then making it public record, definitely puts the needle full green on the dumb-dumb guage.

Similar to the other dumb-dumbs who record themselves assaulting random people, and then fein astonishment when thier videos are used against them to prosecute.

I think all we're saying is, if you did something dumb(-dumb), keep it to yourself, or at the very least, bury the evidence. You're making us look stupid.

Is that where we are now? Posting long-range flight videos is akin to posting videos assaulting another person?

 

[MS Coast]

Is that where we are now? Posting long-range flight videos is akin to posting videos assaulting another person?

Yes, of course, in that they're both inadvisable and both can provide video evidence that might be used in future prosecution.

Please don't extrapolate and sensationalize this into some major issue or fundamental degeneration of American society. There's enough of that going around in the country already.

 

[tstr14]

As comedian Ron White once said, "I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability..."

 

[mavic3usa]

Yes, of course, in that they're both inadvisable and both can provide video evidence that might be used in future prosecution.

There was a time when it was said don't believe anything you see on the internet, most of it is wrong and half of it is fake. I guess now, the thought is it's all true and everything is "evidence." I live in the real world, those long range flights on YouTube are nothing even close to "video evidence" that could be used in a future prosecution. Unlike an assault where there is a victim (to complain) and witnesses to testify what they saw (meaning the video will corroborate), calling long-range video as evidence to a crime is not only sensational but also simply untrue. And the FAA agrees with me; they've done nothing despite thousands if not millions of hours of posted video. THAT means something in the real world. You are guessing.

 

[MS Coast]

those long range flights on YouTube are nothing even close to "video evidence" that could be used in a future prosecution.

Uh-huh, in the same way that dash cam video and traffic camera video can't be used as evidence.

Remember that the fellow in NY that was fined for some of his flights that he celebrated on Youtube? I strongly
suspect that the videos were used in prosecuting him. Posting drone videos on Youtube for commercial purposes without a Part 107 rating can be the very reason for possible prosecution.

And the FAA agrees with me; they've done nothing despite thousands if not millions of hours of posted video.

I doubt that the FAA's reasons for not acting on illegal flights documented on Youtube videos is that they don't believe that Youtube videos can be used as evidence. I suspect that they feel that most infractions shown in those videos simply aren't worth pursuing. They do have limited resources and better things to do.

The FAA certainly has not done "nothing" about egregious infractions posted on Youtube. Remember that fellow in NY who received substantial fines for his flights and videos? There are others.

 

[mavic3usa]

Uh-huh, in the same way that dash cam video and traffic camera video can't be used as evidence.

Remember that the fellow in NY that was fined for some of his flights that he celebrated on Youtube? I strongly
suspect that the videos were used in prosecuting him. Posting drone videos on Youtube for commercial purposes without a Part 107 rating can be the very reason for possible prosecution.


I doubt that the FAA's reasons for not acting on illegal flights documented on Youtube videos is that they don't believe that Youtube videos can be used as evidence. I suspect that they feel that most infractions shown in those videos simply aren't worth pursuing. They do have limited resources and better things to do.

The FAA certainly has not done "nothing" about egregious infractions posted on Youtube. Remember that fellow in NY who received substantial fines for his flights and videos? There are others.

Yes it is true that "posting drone videos on YT for commercial purposes without a part 107 can be the very reason for possible prosecution." For sure when you look at the totality of the circumstances, it is very possible that posting the video is part of the evidence of "commercial operation of a drone without a license" because....that would be the allegation: posting commercially without a license.

However, this is my point and basically the point of this entire thread, something different that the new topic that you brought up: "Conducting a long range flight and posting the video on YT is not enough evidence of an FAA violation or a crime." If you would just stick with the long range flight violation that everyone is talking about in this thread, you will quickly understand there is no way FAA investigators can go into a courtroom with just that video and prove anything.

So here's the reason why it doesn't go to court: FAA knows they have no case with just a video posted on YT and no other "evidence." So they write a long letter or place a long phone call to the target and most likely they get someone on the other end like you who actually believes the video is proof that you broke the law....and you confess and do whatever they tell you to do from there. Case closed. The FAA will never tell you "see you in court" which is why it never ends up there and whatever they DO end up tell you to do, you do it (pay a fine, cut it out, don't do it again, tell your friend to stop it, take down the video, etc). That's real life. Nobody posts the video along with the "flight data details" and a bunch of enough other evidence to get them in trouble.

 

[Tower669]

... but getting back to the subject at hand, you are arguing in defense of the publishing of a long range flight video.
This thread isn't about a long range flight video.

It was a very short flight, that ended in a crash where the pilot admitted he wasn't paying attention to his aircraft, or the airspace he was flying in, while attempting to pilot his aircraft farther than he could visually see it, faster than he could react in an emergency, into an area made of firewood in a region that frequently burns down.

He doesn't need anyone to come to his defense. He admitted to the mistake, then provided the whole world with evidence (yep, there it is) of it. If he didn't want the flames, he should have just picked up his trashed drone, got on his bike, and petaled back home.
Instead, he spent who knows how long editing, narrating, and then publishing that video proof, that maybe he shouldn't be allowed to operate one of those things without supervision, ever again.

It wasn't a mistake. It was dumb. He was dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.
The answer is dumb.
Sometimes it's just plain dumb.

 

[MS Coast]

Yes it is true that "posting drone videos on YT for commercial purposes without a part 107 can be the very reason for possible prosecution." For sure when you look at the totality of the circumstances, it is very possible that posting the video is part of the evidence of "commercial operation of a drone without a license" because....that would be the allegation: posting commercially without a license.

However, this is my point and basically the point of this entire thread, something different that the new topic that you brought up: "Conducting a long range flight and posting the video on YT is not enough evidence of an FAA violation or a crime." If you would just stick with the long range flight violation that everyone is talking about in this thread, you will quickly understand there is no way FAA investigators can go into a courtroom with just that video and prove anything.

So here's the reason why it doesn't go to court: FAA knows they have no case with just a video posted on YT and no other "evidence." So they write a long letter or place a long phone call to the target and most likely they get someone on the other end like you who actually believes the video is proof that you broke the law....and you confess and do whatever they tell you to do from there. Case closed. The FAA will never tell you "see you in court" which is why it never ends up there and whatever they DO end up tell you to do, you do it (pay a fine, cut it out, don't do it again, tell your friend to stop it, take down the video, etc). That's real life. Nobody posts the video along with the "flight data details" and a bunch of enough other evidence to get them in trouble.

You obviously have far more experience in evidentiary proceedings and aviation law than most of us here, and in particular the workings of the FAA's legal team. And your ability to see into the future to illuminate the future actions of the FAA is unparalleled. So, as you say, "Case closed."

 

[DARKSeifer]

You can process the video through photogrammetry and reverse engineer the full flight and get a 3D model with accurate measurements and data of everything. It's not science fiction, it's Metashape (or any other software alike). As an example of a real case, people did that forensic work on that guy that crashed a plane on purpose for a YT video, resulting in an exact 3D model of the full flight path and crash site of the plane, and concluding it was on purpose that he crashed the plane.

Photogrammetry is so powerful that from a YT video that shows closeups of hands (unboxings and similar videos) you can get the finger of a creator and 3d print it to have their fingertip, so be careful of what you post.

I started posting some videos on YT when I started droning a few years ago, they were within the boundaries of legality, but then I decided to delete them all.

If I post something these days are only photographies and always behind a pseudonym, they give away nothing about the flight itself and can be done with a drone, a balloon, a plane, a glider, or even a long stick; so you can easily get away with it no matter where the pic is done.

For me to post a video it would be a video full of short clips of different flights on different days, never a full tutorial or a full flight as those will get you in trouble.

We live in the verge of the dark ages, where everything you do is data for a machine learning module to crunch and prosecute as a crime.

 

[mavic3usa]

You can process the video through photogrammetry and reverse engineer the full flight and get a 3D model with accurate measurements and data of everything. It's not science fiction, it's Metashape (or any other software alike). As an example of a real case, people did that forensic work on that guy that crashed a plane on purpose for a YT video, resulting in an exact 3D model of the full flight path and crash site of the plane, and concluding it was on purpose that he crashed the plane.

Photogrammetry is so powerful that from a YT video that shows closeups of hands (unboxings and similar videos) you can get the finger of a creator and 3d print it to have their fingertip, so be careful of what you post.

I started posting some videos on YT when I started droning a few years ago, they were within the boundaries of legality, but then I decided to delete them all.

If I post something these days are only photographies and always behind a pseudonym, they give away nothing about the flight itself and can be done with a drone, a balloon, a plane, a glider, or even a long stick; so you can easily get away with it no matter where the pic is done.

For me to post a video it would be a video full of short clips of different flights on different days, never a full tutorial or a full flight as those will get you in trouble.

We live in the verge of the dark ages, where everything you do is data for a machine learning module to crunch and prosecute as a crime.

I think you make a good point. Imagine if you can post an illegal flight and substitute the picture of the drone with a picture of a car. Does that mean it's not an illegal drone flight because we see a car in the video instead of a drone? Then the opposite would be true, too....it's just not enough and although the US is slipping a bit in the legal territory, still there's no judge that will issue a search warrant to seize your computer and drone equipment and the internet records to support an allegation of a long-range drone flight violation. As mentioned, all kinds of fake crimes could be manufactured and posted on the internet. A prosecutor has the legal burden to not bringing a case to trial if they don't believe they have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I think the phone call could be made but doubtful on charges. Most pilots understand this when they weigh the risks which is why you see a ton of long-range drone videos posted and zero related prosecutions.

 

[Droning on and on...]

So, if you do an idiot thing while making a YouTube video, do you post the video anyway, or don't post it because every agency in the country is already scrutinizing the industry. Posting irresponsible acts only gives the scrutinizing agencies more fuel to put more regulations on us.

Sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to answer such brainy questions.

 

[Droning on and on...]

But providing evidence against yourself not only breaking the law, but stating your intent to break it alot, in a row, for as long as your battery will allow, and then making it public record, definitely puts the needle full green on the dumb-dumb guage.

Calm down a bit, you're getting hysterical.

I'll post a YT video of me jaywalking against a red light, and testify my intent to keep doing so again and again when I feel like it for the rest of my life. I'm 100% confident I will not only NOT be confronted by law enforcement authorities at all for the documented evidence of me "breaking the law", nor will I be monitored in any way to "catch" me doing it again despite my stated intention to do so.

Why will that, with absolute certainty, be the assured outcome of my defiant scofflaw behavior?

Same reason no YT BVLOS violation will ever result in any action on the part of the FAA.

Violating BVLOS is about the same level of "offense" as jaywalking, and not surprisingly is treated just about the same way. Ignored.

Given that, is it really fair to describe this behavior as idiotic? In my opinion what's idiotic is judging BVLOS flight over wilderness as "dangerous".