Aerial Video Footage of New York Taken By RC Plane

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aerial Video Footage of New York Taken By RC Plane

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 23, 2010 @04:39PM from the make-friends-in-law-enforcement dept.

kkleiner writes with this fun bit from Singularity Hub: "Expert remote control pilot Raphael 'Trappy' Pirker recently took his 54 inch Zephyr model plane on a harrowing tour of Manhattan and the surrounding area. The best part: his RC vehicle was fitted with a camera that wirelessly transmitted an amazing recording of everything it saw – Pirker was piloting his craft with this visual feed. As you can see in the video, the results were spectacular. The plane looks to be flying within a few feet of buildings and whizzing past bridges with ease. You have to check out around 2:01 when he starts to buzz right by the Statute of Liberty."

208 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scary? by AaxelB · 2010-12-23 16:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...
1. Re:Scary? by DamienRBlack · 2010-12-23 16:54 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  He notified authorities and had their permission. In fact, I believe they were on site during the fly.
2. Re:Scary? by DamienRBlack · 2010-12-23 16:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  He notified authorities and had their permission. In fact, I believe they were on site during the fly.
  I am wrong about that. Apparently he did not inform the authorities before hand, but they did show up while he was flying, which is why there is some video of authorities on site when the plane landed, leading to my confusion.
  It seems they were alright with everything, apparently no laws were broken.
3. Re:Scary? by espiesp · 2010-12-23 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  What about the regulation about line-of-sight with remotely controlled hobby aircraft? Or what I have to assume is gross violation of some sort of FCC regulation in regards to transmitter power, etc.
  That said, I think it's awesome. I just don't think it's safe to say it's completely without broken law.
4. Re:Scary? by wizardforce · 2010-12-23 17:36 · Score: 2
  
  No laws were broken but they thought the'd show up anyway? What is wrong with this country.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
5. Re:Scary? by nospam007 · 2010-12-23 17:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A pound of Semtex and the fun begins. Cheap missiles to kill politicians always gets the cops running.
6. Re:Scary? by Mr.+Freeman · 2010-12-23 17:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The sad thing is that I'm not surprised they showed up. People can't even fly an RC plane around without someone calling the cops. The terrorists have won, we're all terrified of everything now.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
7. Re:Scary? by Anubis350 · 2010-12-23 18:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Heh, he apparently was flying from ~3 blocks from my house. The city's emergency command center is only a few blocks away too, on the site of the old red cross building, and of course there's the bridges and lots of traffic on them and the BQE and FDR, plus pedestrians and boats... so it's not surprising that an long range aerial display like this would at least be checked up on. They didn't stop them though, so I'm not really worried about authorities overstepping their boundaries in this case....
  
  --
  "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
8. Re:Scary? by Walt+Dismal · 2010-12-23 18:41 · Score: 2
  
  Dear Sirs;
  I am most interested in flying RC planes as a hobby. Please send details, including maximum payload.
  Sincerely
  Mr. O. B. Lada of Chicago
9. Re:Scary? by Hognoxious · 2010-12-23 18:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No laws were broken but they thought the'd show up anyway? What is wrong with this country.
  Cops having a look and checking things out! Where will it end!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:Scary? by reboot246 · 2010-12-23 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, Big Sis (Janet Napolitano) is going to have a cow when she sees this. The Feds will use any excuse nowadays to clamp down on us more and more.
11. Re:Scary? by zmollusc · 2010-12-23 18:59 · Score: 2
  
  We are not 'all terrified of everything now', it is just that a lot of people have got lucrative contracts in security theatre. We *should be* terrified of the slide into a police state.
  
  --
  They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
12. Re:Scary? by Sparr0 · 2010-12-23 19:26 · Score: 2
  
  What regulation are you referring to in your first question?
  As to transmitter power, it is likely (but not certain) that he has a HAM license and was using one of their bands for his transmitter. It's legal, but not especially common. Go to a fly-in (R/C meetup where flying happens) with a thousand people and maybe twenty of them will be using HAM radios.
13. Re:Scary? by baKanale · 2010-12-23 19:29 · Score: 2
  
  ...apparently no laws were broken.
  Since when has that ever stopped the cops?
14. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in DC Comics, there was a hitman called the Aviator who used explosives and remote control aeroplanes.
15. Re:Scary? by cheekyjohnson · 2010-12-23 19:48 · Score: 2
  
  We are not 'all terrified of everything now'
  I've seen quite a few people (but not everyone, of course) that basically stated that they'd be willing to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security. They support things such as the Patriot Act, and also what is happening at airports. I find it truly frightening how many people aren't afraid of a police state and will willingly give up their freedoms to the government in exchange for such petty things.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
16. Re:Scary? by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-12-23 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  A more likely use for the American Post-Fascist Government freedom fighter would be to use a cross-town spotter to observe (anti terrorist/pedophile) drone activity and relay the heading to an operator on the other side of town, who would fly his RC* bird directly into the flight path of the drone. Direct contact would be bad enough, but 1 pound of explosive may well be enough to bring the drone down.
  
  *ECM-resistant communication may be required on subsequent iterations
17. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 20:04 · Score: 0
  
  oh I'm sure some new laws will go into place now and I mean right now lol
  can't have people flying shit willy nilly all over the place. there could be bad things attached to these model planes.
18. Re:Scary? by Confusador · 2010-12-23 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Since whenever he made that video, apparently.
19. Re:Scary? by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-23 21:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Umm, a 10 sec google search of some NYC RC hobby message boards tells me that flying RC planes in NYC is actually illegal, as in most cities, except in some specific designated areas. Nothing to do with fear of terrorists, and everything to do with crashing into people, breaking windows, causing car accidents and such.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
20. Re:Scary? by Gordonjcp · 2010-12-23 21:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How do you know that they didn't show up because one of them is into RC models?
  An over-reaction would have been arresting the guy and throwing him in the clink until they could figure out a way to interpret a law in such a way as to say he'd broken it. Simply going and having a look isn't an over-reaction. There are a lot of risks involved in flying model aircraft around a city, and even without "security theatre" it's probably worth checking out what's going on and making sure it's not some twat who's just bought a gigantic model aircraft off eBay and is trying to learn how to fly it in a crowded park ;-)
21. Re:Scary? by DrXym · 2010-12-23 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  I expect the panic would be so much greater if you did this on New Year's eve and dropped a flour bomb or two over Times Square. Probably dozens of people would be killed in the stampede that resulted from your "anthrax" attack.
22. Re:Scary? by slick7 · 2010-12-23 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  He notified authorities and had their permission. In fact, I believe they were on site during the fly.
  Was DHS invited.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
23. Re:Scary? by Kevin108 · 2010-12-23 22:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Where I live, everybody feels safe because the cops park in front of a statue next to a local college in the middle of downtown. What the cops are actually doing is getting on the school's wi-fi and checking out the college girls coming and going.
  Cops are people too and often they're looking for a way to fuck off and make it look like they're working. They probably just thought the RC plane was cool and talked to the guy about it because of that.
  
  --
  
  It's a perfect time for being wasted.
  A perfect time to watch the stars.
  - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
24. Re:Scary? by Urkki · 2010-12-23 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...
  It's only matter of time before terrorists get their hands on miniature false vacuum destabilizer bomb , attach one to an RC plane, fly it to the Wall Street, and destroy our universe.
  Time to panic is now, because when they eventually pull that off, you'll just cease to exist with no time to panic.
25. Re:Scary? by N+Monkey · 2010-12-23 23:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...
  Well, if it had been done with this RC plane, I think it certainly would have!
26. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  It's 3-4 months old. More like booooring, not scary.
27. Re:Scary? by Charliemopps · 2010-12-23 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, your surprised CNN/FOX/MSNBC didn't exaggerate/misrepresent the situation and concoct a panic to increase ratings.
28. Re:Scary? by John+Meacham · 2010-12-24 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they showed up, because this is _awesome_. I would have shown up no matter what my job was to check out the cool stuff he was doing.
  
  --
  http://notanumber.net/
29. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  A pound of Semtex and the fun begins. Cheap missiles to kill politicians always gets the cops running.
  Are you kidding? Semtex?
  All you need is the right combination of Toothpaste, Shaving cream and Antiperspirant and the plane would go down in a fireball along with half of New York City.
  This guy has shown the terrorists how to take out bridges and the Statue of Liberty!
  Everybody panic!!!
  ("airport" is the Captcha for this post -- it must be a prophecy)
30. Re:Scary? by cheekyboy · 2010-12-24 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  jeez, how much left over LCD have americans consumed? Are they that clinicly insane and paranoid ? Seriously!!!
  Is America full of insane zombies?
  Btw, their plane and tech behind it is really cool, im sure a lot of scientists would love to use it for documentaries.
  
  --
  Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
31. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  "Terrorist" is definition for the king or government who controls its citizens with fear. The government (or king) caused terror and fear among citizens with different warnings or even itself causing it. So the people were asking the king or government to protect them or allowed them to do anything what leaders wanted.
  In 60's united states of america changed the definition of the "terrorist" to mean the unknown enemy who wants to attack against USA and its citizens. The function is still really the same. But the way how US leaders use "terrorist" in their owned media and use has given them almost all power and control over democracy, freedom and free will and thinking.
  If someone looks littlebit older (10 years or so) as example the U.S Marine handbook of the definition of "Terrorist". They can find the old definition what applies directly to the US government and senators. But it wider public does not know that, as they have learn the twisted definition what US government has wanted to tell to people to control the people and the world.
  The real terrorists are always the leaders. They are the real threat to the people. No one wants to attack to any others country (if they are not actually totally wackos) without reason, what mostly is caused by other countries politic actions.
32. Re:Scary? by nanoflower · 2010-12-24 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't even need a RC plane. Just drop some bags of flour (or any other suitably legal fine white powder)from a building. Put a lit firecracker or something else that will cause the bag to burst well over the heads of the partiers. Someone is bound to panic and start the mob running away from the flour. At the very least you will get the police involved and have a lot of explaining to do (if you are caught.)
33. Re:Scary? by drinkypoo · 2010-12-24 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The cops show up when something strange is going on because their ostensible job is to keep things running smoothly and when something out of the ordinary is happening it is difficult to estimate its impact. They were probably mainly just looking for turbans.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
34. Re:Scary? by minkie · 2010-12-24 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The "Advisory Circular" mentioned briefly in the interview video is FAA AC 91-57, "Model Aircraft Operating Standards". You can download a copy of it from http://tinyurl.com/28wko9o . As the "A" in the name implies, ACs are advisory in nature. They do not carry the force of law, but generally if you can show that you've complied with an AC, the FAA is happy.
  It's pretty clear, however, that he didn't comply with several points of the AC. The Verrazano bridge towers are 690 feet tall, and clearly he was above that, so he obviously didn't stay below 400 feet. The reason for the 400 foot limit is because "real" planes are supposed to stay above 500 feet, per 14 CFR 91.119(c). If you stay below 400 and they stay above 500, nobody swaps paint.
  Given the areas and altitudes he flew in, it's unlikely he caused any hazard to jet traffic flying in or out of the three big NYC airports, but there's a lot of low-level seaplane (East River below the 59th street bridge), and helicopter traffic (numerous busy heliports all over the place) in and out of there. A plane like this is essentially invisible to the pilots of those aircraft. "Big sky, small plane" works in your favor here, even more so than usual.
  It looks to me like he stayed mostly over water, so I'd guess the hazard to people on the ground was minimal. Although, I don't know what would happen if he had lost radio control. Do these things have some kind of dead man switch which cuts power to the prop if radio signal is lost? If so, then it's hard to imagine doing any kind of major damage.
35. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  If I was a cop and saw someone doing this, I'd totally stick around to check it out.
  Why?
  Because it's AWESOME.
36. Re:Scary? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, they showed up and he let them view the video through the goggles as he buzzed them. Seriously, they were actually cool about it.
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
37. Re:Scary? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have two 47inch LCD, is that too much? Should I count the three 24inch models I use for computer monitors? What about all of my laptops? you might be right - too much LCD!
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
38. Re:Scary? by Migraineman · 2010-12-24 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Radio control is a perfectly valid use of a ham license. As mentioned, it's not a common thing to do. As long as you're not encrypting your signal, and you send your station ID at the appropriate intervals, you should be good.
39. Re:Scary? by radish · 2010-12-24 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Where they're flying from is just over the river from the heliport the president uses when he's visiting NYC. If they'd made that flight on one of those days they'd have a whole lot more than one squad car paying them a visit :)
  Cool video though, and I'm glad that for once the authorities didn't over step.
  
  --
  ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
40. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  It seems they were alright with everything, apparently no laws were broken.
  Let me guess - the guys doing the flying did not have heavy suntans - am I right?
41. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Depends. I live at a busy street corner. Not uncommon for accidents in the area. Or some dumbshit to do something stupid, usually not in a car (like a drunk walking in the middle of the narrow road). It's in an older part of an originally rural area gone more city/suburban--there are no nearby shoulders to park; it was originally a rural highway, so narrow road, high traffic volume. I have a huge driveway.
  So cops always use it. So what I found was the amount of noise, tuners, blowouts, muscle car engines came down drastically for the evening/afternoon, sometimes for a day or two.
  A secondary affect though is that, as I don't talk to my neighbors save one and the neighbors seem to avoid me, when the cops stick around to write a report after everything has been cleared from an accident, or they are talking to someone people don't see from the road, people give me REALLY BAD LOOKS (like I just felt up their wife and pissed on their dog, at the same time). The one neighbor I do associate with, is an old lady I knew since I was a kid (husband with a music teacher). Apparantly, my reputation in the area is somewhere around that of a paroled criminal where the cops show up regularly to check up on me or a repeat misdemeanor offender.
  I do have a disturbing the peace conviction, but not at this location and many years ago.
  Does make my life peaceful though. The good is the immediate neighbors have largely figured me out; I used to be watched. But nearby passerbys that are neighbors, I'm a bad guy. Works out great.
42. Re:Scary? by Nethead · 2010-12-24 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  97.215 Telecommand of model craft.
  An amateur station transmitting signals to control a model craft may be
  operated as follows:
  (a) The station identification procedure is not required for
  transmissions directed only to the model craft, provided that a label
  indicating the station call sign and the station licensee's name and
  address is affixed to the station transmitter.
  (b) The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to
  obscure the meaning of the communication.
  (c) The transmitter power must not exceed 1 W.
  [ 54 FR 25857 , June 20, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 56171 , Nov. 1, 1991]
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
43. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  they dont usually have a dead mans switch. Usually loss of positive control means it flys in a straight line until it runs out of fuel.
44. Re:Scary? by wideBlueSkies · 2010-12-24 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  >>People can't even fly an RC plane around without someone calling the cops. The terrorists have won, we're all terrified of everything now.
  Yes and no. It could also be that someone just wanted to be a prick and called it in - just like they would've before 9/11. Human nature hasn't changed at all... some people are just idiots, no matter what happens in the world.
  
  --
  Huh?
45. Re:Scary? by wideBlueSkies · 2010-12-24 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  >>Yep, Big Sis (Janet Napolitano) is a cow
  Fixed that for ya'.
  
  --
  Huh?
46. Re:Scary? by Gordonjcp · 2010-12-24 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, they showed up and he let them view the video through the goggles as he buzzed them. Seriously, they were actually cool about it.
  Now, if they were smart they'd take a note of his phone number, just in case...
  "Hey, you know that radio-controlled plane you have with the camera? Want to make a contribution to public safety, and a few dollars?"
  Sounds like an awfully handy thing to be able to get your hands on, when you absolutely have to see over that wall *right now*...
47. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  If the bridge is 690 feet tall, and the aircraft are flying at 500 feet, won't they swap paint? I'm fairly certain aircraft need to stay 500 feet above the bridge as well right? So in theory, the RC plane needs to stay below 400 feet above the bridge, which would mean he was fine. As my instructor said "You're always 400 feet above something.."
  As for a dead man switch, there are a number of options in the RC world. By default you have a failsafe setting so once the receiver loses signal it will go into a fail safe mode which is generally to cut power to the motor and let the model (hopefully) glide down and crash. These days however you can also get auto pilots that are return to base upon loss of signal. Obviously while flying in New York, a return to base mod would actually be more dangerous since they're GPS direct and who knows what it would have flown into on the way back. Trappy uses (as far as I'm aware) the failsafe option. I know he doesn't believe in auto pilots, he prefers to have complete control of his aircraft all the time.
48. Re:Scary? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  I believe he lives in Sweden, I'd love to see that conversation lol :-)
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
49. Re:Scary? by HoppQ · 2010-12-24 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  No laws were broken but they thought the'd show up anyway? What is wrong with this country.
  Cops having a look and checking things out! Where will it end!
  Good thing this wasn't attempted in Britain, there not only would the police have shown up, they would have asked "What's all this then?"
  
  --
  My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
50. Re:Scary? by joebagodonuts · 2010-12-24 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  The people who support the TSA non-sense at the airports support it happening to other people
  Reporter:"Mrs Clinton, do you support the enhanced searches in airport security lines?"
  Secretary of State Clinton:"Yes"
  Reporter:"Would you submit to such a search?"
  Secretary of State Clinton:"Not if I could avoid it"
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
51. Re:Scary? by d3ac0n · 2010-12-24 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Please note that Trappy's plane is an EPO foam flying wing less than 4 feet long and weighing less than a pound, all equipment included.
  I don't know if Trappy uses one, but many FPV flyers use "failsafe" systems that can perform a variety of functions should the craft lose signal to the base station. Among these is a "return to home" feature which usually entails a short climb or dive to a predetermined altitude, and then a heading back towards the base station using a gps-on-a-chip module. Alternately, the plane will simply fly a pattern for as long as possible.
  In the event of a crash, the plane is made of foam, and won't cause anyone serious harm. In most crashes the plane breaks apart on impact, distributing the force of the crash over a wide area.
  So even if the plane were to crash directly into a densely packed crowd of pedestrians, the worst injury would be a bump on the head from the person hit by the camera. That's it.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
52. Re:Scary? by joebagodonuts · 2010-12-24 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  LCD? I knew I was doing something wrong.
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
53. Re:Scary? by st0nes · 2010-12-24 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  They would say, "Hello, hello, hello" first.
  
  --
  Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
54. Re:Scary? by BostonPilot · 2010-12-25 00:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You are not correct that AIRCRAFT need to stay 500 feet above the bridge. Helicopters (which are a kind of aircraft) have no specific minimum altitude limits. The pilot needs to be sure that his flight isn't going to endanger people or property on the ground.
  I have done photography jobs in NYC that required very low altitude flying. I doubt I would be able to see and avoid an RC aircraft of this size. We generally can identify when a field is being used for RC flying (the people and their equipment has a generally identifiable signature). It's very very difficult to see the RC aircraft themselves because of their size, so a FPV RC aircraft being flown from a remote location is probably a collision hazard.
  I'm not sure whether an RC aircraft of this size would go through a canopy or not. If the helicopter were at speed and you had a head on with an RC plane flying at 80 mph, I think there is a fair chance the RC plane could go through the bubble (it's just a piece of plastic, after all). I'm CERTAIN it would take out my tail rotor, and that could certainly lead to a fatal accident.
  I guess I have the same worries about this sort of thing as I do about UAVs - the person on the ground is taking no personal risk at all, but is putting the helicopter crew and their passengers at risk for their lives. It's not a big worry right now because these things are pretty rare, but what should we do if it becomes commonplace?
55. Re:Scary? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-25 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Apparantly, my reputation in the area is somewhere around that of a paroled criminal where the cops show up regularly to check up on me or a repeat misdemeanor offender.
  I thought you were going to say they thought you were in informant. But then again if that was the case they wouldn't so much avoid you as burn your house down.
Who gives a shit? by Night+Goat · 2010-12-23 16:48 · Score: -1, Troll

Seriously, is this what it takes these days? Fly an R/C plane around and post a video of it on the Internet, get on Slashdot's front page? Thanks for the yuletide, Slashdot.
1. Re:Who gives a shit? by gblackwo · 2010-12-23 16:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It has been modified and tested at a range of 27 miles, with a supposed max operating range of 120. That's news for nerds.
2. Re:Who gives a shit? by The_mad_linguist · 2010-12-23 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  Worse than that, I think this story might be a dupe.
3. Re:Who gives a shit? by freeweed · 2010-12-23 17:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You know how every few months someone posts yet another video of guys taking video from high altitude balloons, and we all yawn because we've seen it a dozen times or more?
  This is the exact opposite of that.
  
  --
  Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
4. Re:Who gives a shit? by shadowbearer · 2010-12-23 18:01 · Score: 2
  
  That the authorities there did not immediately confiscate it is also news for nerds - very good news.
  There will be another endless court fight coming, however - the right of private citizens to fly cameras over other people's backyards.
  Sigh.
  IMO if the government wants to spy on it's citizens, then it should also grant the right for citizens to spy on citizens, including citizens who are government employees. It's only fair, right?
  Yeah, it's pretty fucked, either way. But I'd rather have the right for citizens to spy on citizens, than have corporations or government have that right exclusively. The tech is already there. The genie is out of the bottle. Short of complete suppression of garage/basement tech entrepreneurs there is no way to stop it from becoming ubiquitous.
  Of course if I wanted my backyard to be really private, I could employ tech (such as lasers or other things not invented yet) to spoof or blind the surveillance - and such would be my right, yes?
  Nod to William Gibson.
  SB
  
  --
  It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
5. Re:Who gives a shit? by CAIMLAS · 2010-12-23 19:35 · Score: 2
  
  Yet, bragging rights don't apply unless you prove it. Where's the link describing how? The radio range for something like that, never mind the range for video, is daunting. Granted, he's operating above the horizon, but still!
  I, for one, want to know the specifics of that side of the setup. I could care less about the other components of the event (no interest in flight); the radio communications holding out over that distance, on minimal power, is notable, however.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
6. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  27 miles is no trouble with line of sight and good antennas. Considering it's a plane, which means it can get to some pretty good heights, it's entirely possible for it to be 27 miles away and within RF's line of sight. Just make sure you have good antennas and you'll have no trouble getting 27 miles.
  This is old hat.
  120 miles is only slightly more difficult. Height is everything, try flying the plane with you on a water tower or a mountain or something. You'll get nutso range.
  What's actually news for nerds here is that the cameras used are not only light weight, but some can take a serious beating. Others have linked to videos of these "FPV" setups crashing and then they go on to tell how the camera was a-ok. Crazy stunts in (more of around) the city with a camera strapped on to an RC plane was just a dream a few years ago, now our technology lets us easily pull it off AND get slashdotted!
7. Re:Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 22:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but that video is barely viewable. It would be nice had the author tried to use less cuts and (ob)scene changes. The views were amazing--but I couldn't enjoy them as they lasted only for two seconds or so.
  Well, but this is the new Hollywood for us ...
8. Re:Who gives a shit? by Charliemopps · 2010-12-23 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I'm really surprised at the speed and range of that thing. I used to work on models and I've never seen a model that fast before. Of course, my time was 20 years ago. Was the thing a friggen jet or something?
9. Re:Who gives a shit? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hrm, these guys have been doing this in the Alps and elsewhere. Posting information on how it's done and build information to forums, and helping to refine the DIY aspect of this hobby for over a year. They have flights over multiple MILES in multiple countries, and they fly the plane via an onboard camera. Yeah, it's not NEW news for those who pay attention but it is really cool and geeky and I'm glad to see it's becoming more mainstream with the exception of the fact that now authorities will see it and try to slap it down :-(
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
10. Re:Who gives a shit? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I read a forum where much of this was posted and I'll try to find it for you. For starters check out this site where they post many of their vids :-) http://vimeo.com/riscyd It's going to take me awhile to find this in my history, some of the vids out there by others buzzing windmills are also "interesting"
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
11. Re:Who gives a shit? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Got it! Trappy is the guy who does many of these vids and here's where he's building what he feel sis the best plane for the job http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279141
  MANY pages of build details and back and forth on how best to build it etc. I believe this will seriously answer most any questions you have and he gives some radio info too I think. The vids in the Alps are AMAZING! I guess if I had been smart I would have submitted this way back when. D'oh! Hackaday.com linked to some of his earlier stuff and got me interested FWIW.
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
12. Re:Who gives a shit? by Nethead · 2010-12-24 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  ...the radio communications holding out over that distance, on minimal power, is notable, however.
  Not really. Line of sight is more important than power at VHF+ frequencies. I can set my little ham handheld radio to a half watt output and talk on a repeater about 34 miles away from me. I'm at sea level and the repeater is at about 4000 feet.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
how long will *that* hobby last? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 16:50 · Score: 0

In our fear-based culture, how long until the authorities shut down RC hobbies like that?
As we've seen countless times before, it doesn't have to make any sense. It just has to show that they're "doing something" to "make us safe".
1. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by Spy+Handler · 2010-12-23 18:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you've ever looked at, and held an RC airplane of that size (54 inch wingspan), in person, you would quickly come to realize that it's a toy and of no danger to society. As have apparently the DHS and NYPD guys.
  
  They are made of balsa wood and foam. They are very light. They have a useful payload of about a pound. Yes a 1-pound bomb can cause damage, but really it would just be so much easier for a terrorist to throw a hand grenade or something, rather than go through all of this shenanigan.
2. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ha, you sap. You're making sense which is the exact opposite of what happens. That means RC will be outlawed soon like a water bottle on a plane.
3. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by daid303 · 2010-12-23 23:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You seem to know what you're talking about. And yes, no danger to society, but it is a danger to people. Don't let people think they can just fly model planes in population dense areas. Without thinking about it.
  I fly model glides myself, balsa wood is found in the cheaper range (that I fly). But in the 'sport' range you have carbon fiber planes, which can reach speeds well over 100km/h. And these are gliders we are talking about, you won't hear them till they hit you. With 2kg of carbon going at 100km you can hospitalize someone with ease.
  Also, I envy you Americans at this point. They regulated the hell out of the model flying sport here, making photographing a city like that most likely illegal.
4. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by bball99 · 2010-12-23 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Japanese balloon bombs were toys too! deadly toys nonetheless - thankfully, IIRC, only one person was injured in the northwest during WWII
5. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, we couldn't possibly let anyone do anything that would potentially be a danger to people...
  With 1-2000 kg of steel going at 100km/h you can hospitalize someone with ease.... Don't even think about it.
  I guess it's OK to potentially kill people to take the kids to school quickly and in comfort, but it's not ok to have some fun with a toy plane.
6. Re:how long will *that* hobby last? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  People die in car accidents all the time, maybe we should make driving a car illegal as it's a danger to people as well.... Let's all just sit in our homes and eat mashed potatoes.
DHS by ZDRuX · 2010-12-23 16:50 · Score: 1

Who wants to bet the DHS will is already at his house taking him into custody as a potential terrorrist suspect of at least some made up charge of "engaging in terrorist-like activies that may help promote terrorism" or some other shit like that?

--
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
1. Re:DHS by Walkingshark · 2010-12-23 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think the phrase you're looking for is "weapons of mass destruction related program activities."
  
  --
  The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
2. Re:DHS by plopez · 2010-12-23 17:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  How about "engaging in activities which might someday possibly give someone an idea about engaging in an activity which could lead to someone imagining they could use the information to sort of create a rumor of potential terrorist activity". Let me translate, it means "we have to do something to show that the obscene budget of our department and the pork we shovel to the security companies we contract with is justified in the face of budget cuts." HTH HAND.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
3. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Morons, sometimes we are saved because the idiot with an islamist terrorist idea is not that smart - like the timsquare bomber. This moron has made the perfect equipment for them and is now going to sell it as well. This is not so funny.
4. Re:DHS by 0123456 · 2010-12-23 18:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Morons, sometimes we are saved because the idiot with an islamist terrorist idea is not that smart - like the timsquare bomber. This moron has made the perfect equipment for them and is now going to sell it as well. This is not so funny.
  Absolutely. No-one should be allowed to sell anything that might be useful to a terrorist.
  Like cars. Or gas canisters.
  Or underwear.
5. Re:DHS by PatPending · 2010-12-23 19:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or box cutters. Or shoes.
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
6. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Gas canisters? Well, honestly, why took the risk?
7. Re:DHS by soupforare · 2010-12-24 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually with his piloting skills, they should be hiring him to train soldiers on drone flight.
  
  --
  --- Do you believe in the day?
8. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Or a pointy stick picked up off the ground.
9. Re:DHS by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I believe this was done by Team Black Sheep - if so he lives somewhere near the Alps and not in the US so that might be difficult. He's got some truly incredible videos posted of flying in the mountains, with no peeps!, that are truly awesome.
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
10. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Or airline tickets
11. Re:DHS by eriqk · 2010-12-24 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...
Ars Technica by adamdoyle · 2010-12-23 16:51 · Score: 3, Informative

This was on Ars Technica awhile back:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/12/how-a-rc-airplane-buzzed-the-statue-of-liberty-with-no-arrests.ars
More Details here... by stockard · 2010-12-23 16:54 · Score: 5, Informative

According to this earlier article, the police and TSA talked to him, but surprisingly didn't charge him with anything. He said they were "more curious than confrontational."
1. Re:More Details here... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  He said (after they saw his skin color and lack of foreign accent) they were "more curious than confrontational."
2. Re:More Details here... by nanospook · 2010-12-23 17:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Watching the footage, it appeared he stayed out of downtown Manhattan and stuck to the surrounding water front and buildings. He might have received a different response if he was buzzing Time Square..
  
  --
  Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
3. Re:More Details here... by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · 2010-12-23 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess, they are just as scared of you as you are of them?
4. Re:More Details here... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  He's lucky they have more sense there than in Boston, where it only takes just a few LEDs to get in trouble with the authorities.
  (Although the odds are he knows somebody who knows somebody and had the right connections to stay out of trouble.)
5. Re:More Details here... by jack2000 · 2010-12-23 17:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What are you people? MAD? It's an RC plane, It's a toy, it's a remote controlled piece of plastic and foam.
  Terrorism? I'd be more scared of the loonies living in America right now than the damn terrorists.
6. Re:More Details here... by Adrian+Lopez · 2010-12-23 18:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, people have been killed by RC planes and helicopters. They may look like toys, but except for the ones that are literally sold as children's toys they should always be flown with caution.
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
7. Re:More Details here... by joe_frisch · 2010-12-23 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad they didn't stop him, but I'm also surprised. This has more terrorist potential than a lot of things that are being stopped (like photographing in some locations).
  Don't get me wrong, I really want people to be able to do this sort of cool stuff, provided that some reasonable safety rules are followed. I'm just (pleasantly) surprised that he wasn't stopped by a knee-jerk security response.
  This does point the way to some potentially quite dangerous technologies. OTOH if we banned doing things because they were dangerous we'd still be cowering in our caves for fear of wolves.
8. Re:More Details here... by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-23 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's an RC plane, It's a toy, it's a remote controlled piece of plastic and foam.
  It all depends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmKdA6L_MWk
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
9. Re:More Details here... by Captain+Hook · 2010-12-23 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  How many stories have there been where photographers have been arrested because they have a DSL camera taking pictures of landmarks.
  
  The RC doesn't have to be a weapon, it could just be about large scale surveillance either before an attack or during one of those armed gang rampage attacks which seem to be becoming more popular compared to just a suicide bomb.
  
  It doesn't even have to be terrorist, good old fashioned bank robbers would kill (hopefully not literaly) to get that sort of intel during a robbery.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
10. Re:More Details here... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the blurb mentions that the plane can hit eighty miles per hour on the level and one hundred fifty in a dive. It also mentions that the biggest challenge in flying it in New York is the massive amount of radio interference making it difficult to control. I can only imagine that the fact he was flying out of line of sight did not improve that situation.
  I'm glad he stuck to the waterfront, but even at ~2.5kg, you could really ruin someone's day with that thing. I would not have been comfortable with this plan, even if it did make for a dramatic video.
11. Re:More Details here... by bball99 · 2010-12-24 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  no real technical details on freqs used for servos, but if 6 meters (50MHz) band was used, there should have been more than enough wattage to overcome interference - especially using line-of-sight
12. Re:More Details here... by jack2000 · 2010-12-24 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Three words: Google Street View
13. Re:More Details here... by daid303 · 2010-12-24 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  No large amounts of plastic to be found in real RC planes.
  Cheaper ones are made of balsa wood, expensive ones of carbon fiber.
  Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zpvckToZ0
  The distance they fly is 150 meter, 4 times, speed at which they fly, well over 100km/h. Weight of the plane, around a kilo. If you would get hit by these on it's final run you would end up in the hospital, if you are lucky. There are strict rules during these competitions, and getting to close to the crowd during these runs is instant disqualification.
  You might call them toys, but you can kill someone with them if you are not careful (or willing). There is no problem with these planes in experienced hands, but don't see them as toys.
14. Re:More Details here... by Deadstick · 2010-12-24 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Watching the footage, it appeared he stayed out of downtown Manhattan and stuck to the surrounding water front and buildings
  ...which is a flyway for light aircraft operating under visual flight rules. A heavily used flyway.
  rj
15. Re:More Details here... by Deadstick · 2010-12-24 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you check that out, Professor, Radio Shack? Here's an ad for an RC model that weighs 26 pounds:
  http://secure.hobbyzone.com/hangar9/hangar9_main/hangar9_giantscale/HAN1050.html ...and here's an ad for its six-cubic-inch engine:
  http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/Models/Engines/DesertAircraft/DesertAircraft.html#da100
  rj
16. Re:More Details here... by jack2000 · 2010-12-24 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't mean to belittle RC planes and the people who like flying them. I'm just saying some people are blowing this out of proportion here.
I can see this crossing over with free-roaming gam by qwerty8ytrewq · 2010-12-23 17:00 · Score: 0

es. obviously races, but I think this will fast become quite complex. AR overlays, chasing a ghost of the fastest 100m high traverse of a certain city. very watcheable and fun!

--
Waiting for the other shoe to...
I did this in Hong Kong :) by bronney · 2010-12-23 17:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is a danger to it, as this video illustrate but that's before I got my 2.4GHz Tx.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtN1AtShkk0
Here's one closer to buildings :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrWyOJmEvY4
I don't do FPV either, too scary not seeing the plane :) I fly it until it's a pixel in the sky, and before I do that I made sure I master orientation of a pixel object in the simulator first.
1. Re:I did this in Hong Kong :) by iamhassi · 2010-12-23 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen a lot of videos like yours on youtube, and besides the cool music I'm not sure why this one is on slashdot at all. Did geeks not know you could attach a camera to R/C planes?
  
  There's 3,000+ very similar FPV RC airplane videos on youtube, why did this one make it to slashdot? Cool music?
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Nice... but by countertrolling · 2010-12-23 17:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Way to many edits. Destroyed the flow

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
1. Re:Nice... but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Way to many edits.
  
  Can you show me the way to many edits?
If only... by Trip6 · 2010-12-23 17:17 · Score: 1

...there was a perfectly timed Estes model rocket. My money's on the rocket.

--
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Statute of Liberty? by definate · 2010-12-23 17:17 · Score: 1

LOL What's a...

"Statute of Liberty"
Is that a statute about liberty?
How does one buzz it?
Did he just print it out, and fly his plane over it? If so, that seems like something anyone could do.

--
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1. Re:Statute of Liberty? by srussia · 2010-12-23 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Is that a statute about liberty?
  How does one buzz it?
  Did he just print it out, and fly his plane over it? If so, that seems like something anyone could do.
  Yes, something about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Judging from the concerns voiced in the comments, he definitely buzzed it.
  
  --
  Set your phasers on "funky"!
2. Re:Statute of Liberty? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-23 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  How does one buzz it?
  You post it to Google Buzz?
Question by Kagura · 2010-12-23 17:22 · Score: 1

How many flights did it take to compile this footage? What the max range/time that this platform is capable of?
1. Re:Question by TooMuchToDo · 2010-12-23 17:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Maximum tested range is 27 miles. Maximum estimated range by their calculations is 120 miles.
2. Re:Question by bennomatic · 2010-12-23 19:18 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  And could he automate the navigation using an off-the-shelf GPS unit? And could that rig carry 1.1 lbs of plutonium? Forget about scope and grope; RC hobbyists are the next terrorists.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
3. Re:Question by Sparr0 · 2010-12-23 19:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Just off the top of my head, having built and flown a lot of RC craft in the past, a 54" plane could have a flight time of an hour at 80mph, so he could easily reach his 27 mile radio range and back, with time to maneuver in between.
4. Re:Question by Captain+Hook · 2010-12-23 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Heavy metals are heavy. toxic chemicals are so much lighter.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
5. Re:Question by slick7 · 2010-12-23 22:33 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Maximum tested range is 27 miles. Maximum estimated range by their calculations is 120 miles.
  Can Al Kaida learn to fly them like 747's?
  How many will it take to drop a 50 story steel-girder reinforced skyscraper? Two?
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
6. Re:Question by slick7 · 2010-12-23 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Heavy metals are heavy. toxic chemicals are so much lighter.
  Heavy metals are heavy, toxic metals are toxic.
  These RC's are better for recon. Maybe you could fly one into some asshats window. Better than some bullshit hotrod.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
7. Re:Question by wesleyjconnor · 2010-12-23 22:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  TSA outside hobby stores, one step at a time...
  
  --
  http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
8. Re:Question by NoSleepDemon · 2010-12-24 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Depends upon how hot their fuel burns
9. Re:Question by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  These are electric and are flying wings. I believe he has tested his 27mile claim flying out of a valley near his home. It's pretty awesome video to say the least!
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
10. Re:Question by stuckinphp · 2010-12-24 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  TSA outside hobby stores, one step at a time...
  --
  http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com/
  
  The amusement of sig combined with this post is astounding.
  http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com/girls/ And my god, not what you'd expect.
  
  --
  if only
Expect him to be arrested any second by BigBadBus · 2010-12-23 17:24 · Score: 1

...for infringing people's privacy, a la Google Street View.

--
My web domain.
Cool tech by mveloso · 2010-12-23 17:29 · Score: 1

Guess he'll be getting a DARPA contract soon. Amazing that he was able to do that with all the lag involved (assuming that there was lag).
1. Re:Cool tech by TooMuchToDo · 2010-12-23 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  No lag with line of site 2.4ghz camera at only 27 miles max.
Call the cops by hairyfish · 2010-12-23 17:32 · Score: 1

Clearly this is a threat to national security? I'm not sure how or why, but I just know that somehow the government doesn't like this.
1. Re:Call the cops by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 17:49 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  very simple. Now, some idiot with some islamofascist idea, can buy a readymade tool (he says he's going to sell it ) with some petrodollars and God knows do what. You GEEKS now cry awesome! Cool! etc, you morons are interested only in tech. It would not be any funny when this moron sells a readymade plae to some fool who then uses that to do some damage. Also, how close he flew it to Liberty too is disconcerting.
  Sometimes we are saved because the bad guys are not that smart - think the Time Square bomber. Now what this guys is going is making it ready-made for them. Govt has a very valid reason to be concerned, and so have I. Some geek like you will still keep asking 'does ti do Linux'. Morons go to hell.
2. Re:Call the cops by zmollusc · 2010-12-23 19:08 · Score: 2
  
  You think that is bad? I heard the other day that many people don't grow their own food! OMG, they totes buy food prepared in huge factories operated by minimum-wage scum! It wouldn't take much effort to infiltrate the production line and put Allah knows what into the food. Will nobody think of the children???!!!!!
  
  --
  They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I flew Ravens... by gandhi_2 · 2010-12-23 17:32 · Score: 1

...in Ramadi in 2005-2006.
You have to get airspace clearance just like every other aircraft, I don't think this guy did.

--
THL phish sticks
1. Re:I flew Ravens... by Sparr0 · 2010-12-23 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need airspace clearance to fly a model in most classifications of airspace. General rule of thumb is don't fly over any airports or military bases. I've gotten visits for flying inside an army base's radar coverage, but they were just curious.
2. Re:I flew Ravens... by gandhi_2 · 2010-12-24 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not talking about restricted airspace, i'm talking about airspace deconfliction.
  When your model is out of LOS and over a couple hundred AGL it is in contention with other aircraft. Just like SUAVs, he should have filed a flight plan and scheduled his corridors just like a helicopter would in the city.
  I'm not talking about trouble with the DHS or FBI. I'm talking about trouble with the FAA.
  In Iraq, around 2005, a helicopter hit an RQ-11A Raven. The battery pack went right thru the windscreen of the helo. It easily could have killed the pilot, which you can imagine could have easily crashed the bird. A helicopter crashing down on a city of people could substantially increase frowny-face.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
F*(K the panic do something awesome by __aaeuwj6541 · 2010-12-23 17:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

is it just me or has just about everyone glaized over the fact that for the time when these guys were doing this, they were probably having the time of their lives, fuck the authorities, do cool shit with your time.
1. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by serbanp · 2010-12-23 19:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't mind them doing it, but this is insane, especially when doing it in an area highly sensitized to flying missiles/planes.
  It only takes a few assholes in the government or the legislative to imagine such a plane flying with a dangerous payload (explosives, dirty rad material etc) to ban R/C flying planes, forcing me and so many others who enjoy this hobby to simply stop.
  Think it can't happen? They did it already once with a whole class of model rockets...
2. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by bigstrat2003 · 2010-12-23 19:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That doesn't make this activity insane. That makes the governmental idiots insane.
  
  --
  "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
3. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Eunuchswear · 2010-12-23 21:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. It makes the electorate insane.
  You get the government you want.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
4. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding. The way things are, I suspect somebody would panic and phone the police if they saw a guy in a bright red suit tossing toys out of their flying sleigh while it was being pulled by reindeer. On Dec. 24th.
5. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  You get the government you want.
  BULLSHIT!
6. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  No, you get the government you deserve.
7. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by kiwimate · 2010-12-24 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  No. It makes the authorities necessarily cautious because of the potential for scary stuff with this kind of activity.
  Play devil's advocate for a moment - what if someone does something like this, and does load the plane with a bunch of explosives and kills someone, and it later comes out that the TSA/NYPD/pick-your-acronym knew about it and didn't at least check out the guy. How many people on this very thread would be jumping up and down bleating about how incompetent the authorities are and the agencies need to be disbanded?
  They're in a no-win situation sometimes. Instead of playing everything as some kind of black and white game, try realizing there are gray areas and ask a few difficult questions.
8. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by CohibaVancouver · 2010-12-24 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's not insane, it's clever, as it further helps to prove that the gov'ment can't protect Mr. and Mrs. Citizen from every potential 'threat' everywhere, all the time and that you as a citizen need to keep calm and carry on - That plane you see buzzing around the Statue of LIBERTY is probably just a little plane, not some terrorist weapon.
9. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Painted · 2010-12-24 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
  
  --
  http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
10. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by ItsJustAPseudonym · 2010-12-24 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are correct that the electorate is insane. As a result, we get the government that the media and the people with money shove down our throats.
11. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by S.O.B. · 2010-12-24 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No. It makes the electorate insane.
  You get the government you want.
  The electorate doesn't matter. Regardless of who we vote for we get the government the corporations and lobbyists want.
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
12. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by stealth_finger · 2010-12-24 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  No. It makes the electorate insane.
  You get the government you want.
  You get to choose the best from a bad bunch.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
13. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2010-12-24 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  Think it can't happen? They did it already once with a whole class of model rockets...
  What class of model rockets might this be? If you are referring to the ATF trying to regulate high power rocket motors as explosives, we took them to court over that, AND WON.
  Sprawling land development, the proliferation of lawyers, and suburban soccer moms are doing a lot more to curb model rocketry than the government these days. It's getting harder to find a large enough open field to fly even A-C motor Estes-type rockets anymore. The days of being allowed to launch at town parks and school football field is pretty much over. But if you join a club and are willing to drive to a suitable launch site, the hobby is probably at the most vibrant point since the moon landings. Certainly the court victory over the ATF has energized the high-power end of the hobby.
  
  --
  Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
14. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Triv · 2010-12-24 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "I don't mind them doing it, but this is insane, especially when doing it in an area highly sensitized to flying missiles/planes."
  As a New Yorker, can I just say: stop assuming shit about how we feel about 9/11 and 9/11 related things. As a community, we got over the terrorist attack years and years and fucking YEARS ago; it's people from not-here who keep this crap up.
  We're fine with RC geeks. We don't cringe every time a plane flies overhead. We're totally, completely fine with Muslims. Stop, please, just stop making assumptions and taking actions based on how you think we think about something that happened a decade ago, and let it GO, already. Find somebody else's banner to carry.
15. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by evildarkdeathclicheo · 2010-12-24 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Last I heard, Cheney and Rumsfeld are still at large. If the government isn't going to do anything about the people responsible for crashing passenger jets into buildings in NYC, why the fuck would they care about an RC plane?
16. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Most New Yorkers are afraid of terrorism, they know one misplaced lunchbox and boom! 1-hour long train delays. And a one hour train delay is just awful. Really. No one here is afraid of terrorism, they're more concerned about how it affects the trains than the odds of it actually killing anyone.
17. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by wideBlueSkies · 2010-12-24 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Fellow New Yorker here. I completely agree with parent.
  What happened here was a fucking horrible thing. People we know didn't come home from work that day. But life does go on. Yeah, I still think about it when I see a plane flying low over the city..or when I see the Coast Guard guys on the SI Ferry with machine guns.. but it's not like I hate the world for what happened or cower in fear because of 9/11.
  I don't even worry about another attack. If it happens, and it's my time to go.. then fuck it. What else can you do really?
  Having said all that. I have been in love with the Verrazano Bridge since I was a baby, and I almost jumped out of my chair when I saw it on the video (just before the Statue Of Liberty). What a great surprise and treat to see that.
  Awesome work with that plane and camera. :)
  
  --
  Huh?
18. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by russ1337 · 2010-12-24 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct that the electorate is insane. As a result, we get the government that the media and the people with money shove down our throats.
  With the media being controlled by the people with money, and with close ties to the government, we can reduce that to "we get the government the people with money want us to get".
  I recall some news during the last presidential election which was looking at each hopefuls election funds - and basically divided the funds total by ~$35 to estimate the number of votes that person would get. The more you spend, the more votes you get.
19. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by serbanp · 2010-12-24 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, I was thinking about the high-power class and APCP regulation. I'm glad that that dumb attempt at over-regulation was struck down in court.
  Still, the threat of some in-power stupid move regarding tech-oriented-hobbies-with-a-potential-for-destructive-acts remains as actual as ever.
20. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by d3ac0n · 2010-12-24 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Play devil's advocate for a moment - what if someone does something like this, and does load the plane with a bunch of explosives and kills someone?
  Except that these planes can't carry more than a few OUNCES of payload. Basically a pack or two of firecrackers, and that's about it. They simply don't have the lifting capability or range to do any serious damage.
  For cripes sake, most of them are made of FOAM. (Usually EPO or EPP. Not EPS) Trappy's primary plane is a flying wing plane not even 4 feet from wingtip to wingtip. They primarily use electric motors powered by Lithium Polymer batteries with running times rating in minutes, not hours. It's not like we are talking predator drones here.
  To get enough explosives onboard to actually cause harm, let alone kill, you would need a VERY large plane. A very large, wood frame, gas operated, LOUD, EXPENSIVE plane. At that point you might as well just crash the plane right into your target and forgo the explosive.
  It's cheaper to just brainwash some dumb mooslime kid into strapping some simtex blocks and a trigger onto himself. And less noticeable, until the boom, that is.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
21. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by joebagodonuts · 2010-12-24 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Competent or not, I'm ready for the TSA to be disbanded now. It's not like we're getting much for the resources expended.
  Getting more personal freedom in return for the lack of a "show of force/security theatre" is a good trade-off.
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
22. Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome by Zebra_X · 2010-12-26 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations have agendas because they are run by people who have agendas. Corporations don't just run themselves, there are millions of the electorate walking into their doors every day furthering their agendas. Corporations are the electorate. The electorate is getting just what they want - food, security and a paycheck.
  The issue I see is that not everyone wants what they are being given or the "protection" being offered. To deny the fact that we and our predecessors are collectively responsible for the current state of affairs is disingenuous.
Gas or electric? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 18:04 · Score: 1

Come on, some technical info on the plane?
1. Re:Gas or electric? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Dear Terrorist:
  As per your request, I am sending some EMAiLS your way.
  Signed,
  President Sarah Palin
Argh! by Phoenix666 · 2010-12-23 18:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

What sheep Americans have become! A guy does a cool, harmless thing like fly a model airplane over the East River and suddenly everybody on this board is biting their fingernails about whether the government will *allow* us to do such a thing. The government does not *allow* us to do anything; in this country, it's what we, the People, allow the government to do that's important. We allow them do very specific, limited things at our sufferance. Everything else we do at our pleasure and the government can fuck off if it doesn't like it.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
1. Re:Argh! by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-12-23 18:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I like your version of reality better than the one I live in. I'd sign up in a heartbeat if I felt you could deliver. :(
  -FL
2. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 18:59 · Score: -1
  
  very simple. Now, some idiot with some islamofascist idea, can buy a readymade tool (he says he's going to sell it ) with some petrodollars and God knows do what. You GEEKS now cry awesome! Cool! etc, you morons are interested only in tech. It would not be any funny when this moron sells a readymade plae to some fool who then uses that to do some damage. Also, how close he flew it to Liberty too is disconcerting.
  Sometimes we are saved because the bad guys are not that smart - think the Time Square bomber. Now what this guys is going is making it ready-made for them. Govt has a very valid reason to be concerned, and so have I. Some geek like you will still keep asking 'does ti do Linux'. Morons like you go to hell.
3. Re:Argh! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-23 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Now, some idiot with some islamofascist idea, can buy a readymade tool (he says he's going to sell it ) with some petrodollars and God knows do what.
  
  Last I checked, you can easily buy a semi-auto AK in the 'States. To "some idiot with some islamofascist idea" planning on doing "God knows what", this would be a far more useful ready-made tool compared to an RC plane.
4. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  I suggest that we deprecate the current Constitution and take these gems of wisdom as "The Constitution V2.0".
5. Re:Argh! by imidan · 2010-12-23 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, so I'm looking at this article with 39 responses, including those beyond my threshold. I can assure you that 'everyone on this board' is not fretting about the government allowing us to fly model airplanes. We seem to be responding pretty normally, really. A lot of people are saying how cool it is, some people are saying 'how could he do that?', and the rest are saying 'that's dumb'. It actually looks like a pretty good bell curve, to me.
  It seems that you're the sheep: the guy who insists that everyone else is a sheep, no matter what they do. I see this a lot with people who identify as libertarian.
  Guy: Hey, we flew this model airplane and took pictures and it was really cool!
  Libertarian: Well, if you had really done that, the government would have shown up and arrested you, tortured you and assessed you a tax, and infringed your right to bear arms. And anyone who disagrees with me is a pawn of the gubment.
  Guy: No, I mean, here is the movie, this is what we did.
  Libertarian: FREEEEDOOOOOOM! *dies*
  Guy: Poor fella. If he'd just chilled out, his aorta might not have burst, and he could have enjoyed this interesting movie that I made from my model airplane.
6. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you're a troll, but if you aren't, you're a fucking tool. Your brain is so soft, you should go and soak your head from the neck up in salt water for an hour or so before you come back.
  Terrorists are not morons. They're people just like me. Not you, because you're obviously too stupid to think straight. But terrorists can think of this shit, if a guy on the internet can. Don't be a dumbshit, please. If you persist, walk out into the sea until your head is underwater, then stay there,
7. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Its the government for the people, by the people, of the people. I personally don't want people flying rc planes in cities. What if it crashed into somebody? Just because you like it doesn't mean we the people do.
8. Re:Argh! by rolfwind · 2010-12-24 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Too many people here scared of their own shadows.
  If you and anyone else wants to get into this sort of thing, or just RC planes in general, may I suggest RCGroups.com:
  http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php
  It's an awesome forum.
9. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  It was cool, but not harmless. I live in NYC, and we recently had a helicopter and a plane meet in a kiss of death over the Hudson. This RC plane is mostly light enough not to cause problem if it hit a plane or helicopter ( and we have lots of helicopters in flight all hours of the day ). But I do worry about the battery. It's not light, and i'm not sure what it would do to a plane's propeller or a helicopters blade....
  I really only see this kind of hobby taking off in a place like NYC when full autonomous FAA regulated flight paths are auto-integrated between the RC plane and with helicopter, sea-plane, and jet flight paths. Digital sky-highways concepts. Nothing that's going to happen soon.
10. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-25 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  When people want the government to provide income, jobs, healthcare, education, ... pretty much everything that independent people used to provide for themselves ... it's no wonder that people expect government intrusion into every other aspect of their lives...
  Ironic CAPTCHA.... "prosper"
Regulations following.... by bm_luethke · 2010-12-23 18:30 · Score: 1

in 3..2..1..
Nifty things - I always wondered why the RC aircraft people never really got into this. The technology can't be that tough to do and there looks to be quite a bit of fun involved. As pretty as this was in a city I would *love* to see a number of rural recording through some of the mountainous regions or night flying. Whilst I have a fairly severe fear of heights I normally still request a window seat on air planes because the anxiety is generally worth the view, I've tried to take pictures but commercial airliners windows aren't optimized for taking them. Were I to guess I would have said money is the primary reason - but well I know more than a few into the larger scale RC planes and money isn't their primary concern (many have more invested than they would for a decent car and the *know* at some point it is going to crash). They have all just looked at me like I was crazy when I asked.
I'm also surprised he got permission (and, for the moment, I'll ignore the 900lb gorilla of our current clamp downs) and note that there are two types of RC planes - those that have crashed and burned and those that will. As such even in rural areas if you are going to go outside of a really small range (basically around your own house) you have to go to specific areas designated for them. It's not just other aircraft (it would be ...bad... if a real airplane hit one of these where it wasn't supposed to be) but they are where people normally aren't so they do not crash on unsuspecting heads. Most of those areas in the film are not that - they are dense urban areas. Whilst the footage is neat, had there been one of the not so rare glitches and someone that was simply walking down a street got killed for it, not so much. The video shows more than one place this would *not* have been an unlikely scenario. Heck they keep manned aircraft that are MUCH more stable limited for that reason too.
Not that I'm against this being in our hands, but just that NYC may not be the best place for fly overs :) (lots of really nice non-urban areas).

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
1. Re:Regulations following.... by Sparr0 · 2010-12-23 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think you have to go to certain areas to fly RC planes?
  The obvious safety solution is a parachute that deploys if radio contact is lost or the plane impacts anything while still in the air. They exist, but almost no one uses them.
Cool, however... by virgnarus · 2010-12-23 18:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

FPV (First Person View) RC flying has been starting to become trendy in the past few years and this isn't very different from what has been done in the past. There have been flights that have extended at further ranges with more daring stunts in public areas. Though, what is special about this is particular video is it was shot in the US, which makes FPV practically illegal with the amount of restrictions they place on it. It's the equivalent of permitting one to carry a firearm as long as long as it's bright orange, muzzle-loaded. has "REAL GUN" printed on the sides, shoots blanks and can only be aimed at certified targets in licensed shooting ranges. Anyways, I'd highly recommend anyone to go and take a gander at certain videos on youtube with the name "FPV" and discover a lot on what this awesome hobby has to deliver.
1. Re:Cool, however... by garymortimer · 2010-12-23 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  The rules are changing for sUAS SFAR 107 is the thing to look for. Several rules were broken don't believe the it was perfectly legal brigade. There is an investigation ongoing we understand. sUAS News .com
2. Re:Cool, however... by Sparr0 · 2010-12-23 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Where in the USA is FPV flying illegal?
3. Re:Cool, however... by virgnarus · 2010-12-24 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Where in the USA is FPV flying illegal?
  It's not, I'm implying however that the amount of restrictions they place on it surmount to paralyzing but not completely killing the sport. For example, one of the benefits of FPV is the capability of flying at a distance of several miles, depending on the quality of the RC. Yet regulations require it to be at visible range from you or your partner, and it must be done in areas designated as permissible for flying, which do not extend far. It's one of the primary reasons why the guy who makes these FPV videos makes a fuss about the legality of it, because in many other countries like Brazil there are little to no restrictions and therefore the sport is far more prominent.
4. Re:Cool, however... by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, lots of coverage from other countries of this it seems and a few guys in the midwest here too of course :-) Vids of folks buzzing windmills are interesting lol
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
"Harrowing?" by AxeTheMax · 2010-12-23 19:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

How was this incident "harrowing"? Was the land surface of Manhattan torn up to several inches deep? Were people's feelings deeply and permanently hurt by this flight? Or is this another journalist using a long word that he/she does not actually have any idea of the meaning of but thinks it makes them sound good?

See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harrow
1. Re:"Harrowing?" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  How about you link to the right word?
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harrowing
2. Re:"Harrowing?" by sakdoctor · 2010-12-23 22:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If that plane had crashed into a building, it would have been like 911 divided by 100
  Yes. Nine point one one!
3. Re:"Harrowing?" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Harrow != Harrowing
  Reading comprehension fail!!
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harrowing
Aerial Dispersant by Katchu · 2010-12-23 19:45 · Score: 1

One pound of anthrax spores ... (OTOH a bicycle mount would be easier to control)

--
Keep Doing Good.
Best FPV of all time. by bronney · 2010-12-23 19:50 · Score: 1

This one owns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgWIdpegfuc&feature=related
1. Re:Best FPV of all time. by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Watch some of these :-) http://vimeo.com/riscyd
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
2. Re:Best FPV of all time. by bronney · 2010-12-24 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  woah dude that glider formation is sick :)
Unwatchable by bytesex · 2010-12-23 19:51 · Score: 2

The guy may understand flying, but he sure as hell doesn't understand cutting footage into a comprehensive, watchable piece of film

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
RC Killers by dingram17 · 2010-12-23 20:10 · Score: 1

Yes, but those RC planes have names like Predator, Reaper and Avenger and cost a lot of money and people with funny looking uniforms drive them. That makes it OK apparently.
O. B. Lada by silverspell · 2010-12-23 20:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Mr. O. B. Lada of Chicago
So wait, this changes everything: not only is Paul McCartney alive and the head of Al-Qaeda, but he's living in freakin' Chicago? Crazy world...
1. Re:O. B. Lada by aquila.solo · 2010-12-29 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. Life goes on.
United Cowards of America by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-23 20:53 · Score: 0

There's no better target. Hit it once and hear it squeal so loud it's heard all over the world. Then it goes crazy. =D They sure are entertaining when frightened.
Innocent people by Arancaytar · 2010-12-23 23:20 · Score: 1

to make sure the plane would not fall on innocent people in the case of failure
Huh. How could he possibly tell who's innocent at that distance?
It's "cool" but... by Andy+Smith · 2010-12-24 00:28 · Score: 1

I'm going to go against the general concensus and say that I wasn't at all impressed. The idea itself is cool, and has a huge amount of potential, but the execution was poor. The choice of lens is too wide (don't use wide angle when you're going to be panning / tilting), the camera has part of the plane in shot (again due to the lens being too wide), and apparently there was nothing done to avoid rain drops on the lens (would have been easier to avoid with a less-wide lens). Honestly, nearly everything that _could_ be done wrong, _was_ done wrong, and it was all because they didn't think enough about lens choice. The only bit they did right was not crashing the plane.
1. Re:It's "cool" but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, your version was so much better.
2. Re:It's "cool" but... by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  The wing is left in the frame by Trappy intentionally - not all pilots do it however. He flies FPV and having a portion of the wing in view gives him a frame of reference. By all means do it better if you can, he's posted all the details on how he did it online... FWIW I'm pretty sure he did it more for himself and not to please others. His video in the Alps are incredible too but yeah there's a wingtip in view lol.
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Three dimensional awesomeness by Kinthelt · 2010-12-24 03:37 · Score: 1

If he could strap another camera to this and make the video 3-D, I think he could make a lot of money selling footage to Hollywood.

--
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Stall Speed? by mikeraz · 2010-12-24 03:42 · Score: 1

How slow can a wing like that go?

--
There's more to it than this.
1. Re:Stall Speed? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on a number of factors. Some can go pretty slow. Some big sailplanes can fly at under 10 mph.
  However, a plane full of A/V gear is likely heavy and therefore will probably have a pretty high stall speed.
Questions about the build and radios and and and? by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 04:04 · Score: 1

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279141
Over 100 pages of details and questions etc. This guy and others have been doing this for awhile :-)

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Lame music by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 04:34 · Score: 0

lazy ass drum beat along with tired samples/patches made me turn the volume off.
RE: by Archon-X · 2010-12-24 04:39 · Score: 1

It's kind of like:
this or this - but with less testicles :)
Amazing... by CFBMoo1 · 2010-12-24 05:42 · Score: 1

Really makes me wish I could fly.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Not his best work by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-24 05:44 · Score: 0

I am more impressed with his mountain flying :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUoR_7gzzM&feature=player_embedded
1. Re:Not his best work by BLKMGK · 2010-12-24 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think for some reason the fact that he did this one near a major US city that has a fear of airplanes got this more attention than some of his other stuff flying in unpopulated areas. I agree that his other stuff is better, the mountain vids make me wish I could fly like a bird for sure!
  
  --
  Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
FCC violations by kriston · 2010-12-24 15:24 · Score: 1

Many of these craft use illegally modified TV transmitters in the unlicensed 900 MHz bands to achieve these broad distances and this is NOT a good thing.
While I've enjoyed watching these videos for years and have been amazed how the technology has improved so much, it's not a good thing when you're using ground- and air-based wireless links at illegal levels. These high-powered levels not only cause interference to other devices due to the extra power and antenna configurations, but it's even more serious because the transmitters are so high off the ground. Your high-powered transmitter blasts interference over a large area to important unlicensed systems and cause serious problems with other users of these bands.
Keep following the rules. Don't modify your transceivers.

--
Kriston
1. Re:FCC violations by kriston · 2010-12-24 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Naturally his plane is using 2.4 GHz, but the rules should still be followed and most of these bands are not intended to use high-mount antennae, let alone airplanes.
  (I'm only talking about the video downlink)
  
  --
  Kriston
interview here by cheekyboy · 2010-12-24 23:01 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MwfEVIfiGs
These guys are cool, FPV planes are awesome.
Getting close to IMAX quality here on a budget.
Next thing these guys need to do is do a dual cam 3D FPV video.
or perhaps retrofit a nightvision/IR video feed when the moon is full.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Rio de janeiro flyover by dafradu · 2010-12-25 00:37 · Score: 1

This flies all over Rio de Janeiro, throught tunnels, under bridges... makes this NY video boring ;p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aIq8r4-m3c