jp79er Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Went to out local display tonight, and low an behold a quadcopter came over an was getting up close and personal with the firework.....tbh was surprised a couple of times it was taken out by the fire work as show don't hold back with the barrages and it was getting very close a showered in sparks... Tbh there is a time and place to fly these things and to me that was being a bit silly, when it finished it dropped down in to the carpark behind. ...i wouldn't be surprised if the fuzz was watching where it was going and the person ended up getting their collar felt..... Posted by me ???? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Too much money? Just a moron? In need of education, possibly at Her Majesty's Pleasure? Any of the above! Just an idiot. Correctly aligned, safely discharged fireworks could have been deflected into the crowd - not the brightest of sparks eh? Al. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kangarilla Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 brightest of sparks, like what you did there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCbutcher Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Crazy fools anything for youtube. have a look on ther your town firework display quadcopter or something. He must of had fpv on so will surly be uploaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 My reply was after having just visited our 'local' official council display. It was quite spectacular, but there were upwards of perhaps 15-20,000 people there. If any of those fireworks were deflected, then the type of fireworks being used would most definitely have caused injury. Perhaps I'm reaching that stage in life where what is interesting and fun to many - taking a selfie on the motorway at 150+ mph for example - is just plain stupidity. I'm fairly certain the authorities would have postponed the display, if possible, whilst the 'perpetrator' was located and 'restrained' before continuing. Try explaining to the 15-20,000 spectators freezing their 'parts' off waiting for the display that it was a bit of fun!! Al. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninderby Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Call it common sense, horse sense or what you will it seems to be sadly lacking in a few morons who could spoil it for the majority. You just know stricter rules are inevitable. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tug Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 If it wasn't over the heads of the crowd, or too close to the fireworks, then no biggie. If it was directly over the crowd, then yeah, far too risky. It would only need one glitch and down it comes, then it wouldn't even need a strike from a firework. He doesn't need punishing, just an admonishing finger to say "yes, you can fly it and film the display, but not over the crowd and keep it back out of the blast zone". Job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabba1 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 The latest rules here. http://www.phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?p=131954#p131954 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tug Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 That's a long list of rules, he was in breach of most of them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp79er Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 A good many breaches, but atleast he didn't drop a pig from up there i suppose so it wasn't all unlawful. ...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubberz Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Probably watched gadget show other night. They did same thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamiyacowboy Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 fireworks have to be a set distance from the viewing public by law. we are allowed no more than 150m in distance from public-buildings etc etc yadda yadda. truth is, it was dark, in the dark the human eye works alot harder, it does not have the clarity of distance its all down to rods and cones inside the eyeball itself. so what you think is close could be a fair distance way. your eye picks up color more than movement due to the rod/cone . so its highly possible the pilot was in his own right to fly, he had completed the rule set, he had navigation lighting and was placed away from the main bulk of the crowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubberz Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 It's all well and good flying on public places BUT no matter how good you are, one rotor failure can send the quad into the crowd. My guess is nobody has public liability insurance for flying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeghead28 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Whilst I agree with most of what has been said it does seem slightly odd to me the quad is viewed as a potential hazard whilst we seem to forget that the activity it was filming was basically glorified explosions! Okay the explosions apparently happen in a controlled and safe manner but if one decended into the crowd somehow or misfired would we then call for action to ban fireworks? Also when people send rockets up and the casing comes back to earth where do they land? Okay maybe they are nowhere near as heavy but could still cause potential injury. People call for legislation for quads but what about going to the local corner shop and buying some explosives to shoot randomly into the air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tug Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Some very good points, Smeggy, but tight legislation is going to arrive soon, we're all just sheep to the farmer that we call "Government"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubberz Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Whilst I agree with most of what has been said it does seem slightly odd to me the quad is viewed as a potential hazard whilst we seem to forget that the activity it was filming was basically glorified explosions! Okay the explosions apparently happen in a controlled and safe manner but if one decended into the crowd somehow or misfired would we then call for action to ban fireworks? Also when people send rockets up and the casing comes back to earth where do they land? Okay maybe they are nowhere near as heavy but could still cause potential injury. People call for legislation for quads but what about going to the local corner shop and buying some explosives to shoot randomly into the air? In my opinion that is a little off topic. Plus the spectators chose to be in the environment and are aware of the dangers therefore take responsibility to some degree if something where to happen with the fireworks. However they would not be standing watching the fireworks and expecting a 3,4,5kg object with rotors come hurtling at them? Controlled fireworks displays will be insured and safety precautions taken, flying an unmanned remote control device will be neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven.T Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Just seen this thread and it reminded me of something I read a little earlier today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29929173 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atom3624 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 This part more-or-less says it all: "Ch Insp Sean Hogan said: "These aircraft can weigh upwards of 22lb (10kg) and the potential for injury when flying such a vehicle over a crowd of more than 30,000 people in the pitch black and in close proximity to fireworks is substantial." A woman arrested for obstructing officers was later de-arrested after police decided to take no further action. "We are not trying to discourage people from flying such aircraft, but ask that if you wish to do so, to consider the environment they are used in, the safety of other people and the laws governing their proper use," Mr Hogan added. Heaton Park is Manchester's biggest green space and its annual fireworks display regularly attracts thousands of people." Al. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabba1 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) just seen this.man arrested for flying over heaton park manchester. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-50-arrested-after-drone-8058170 Edited November 7, 2014 by jabba1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoothybb Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) About that first article, about the rules, can anyone clarify whether flying FPV changes the rules on where you can fly? I didn't think it did but according to that forum/blog interpretation of the CAA rules, you could legally fly over fireworks (or any crowd) if not FPV'ing? That would seem odd? So according to that irish article, providing the heaton park droner wasn't FPV'ing, he's got nowt to worry about? (I might have read it wrong but the link now won't work for me) Edited November 10, 2014 by Smoothybb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.