Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aerial Video Footage of New York Taken By RC Plane

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the make-friends-in-law-enforcement dept.

Toys 208

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."

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Scary? (4, Insightful)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657754)

Quite honestly, I'm surprised this didn't cause some sort of panic...

Re:Scary? (1, Informative)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657800)

He notified authorities and had their permission. In fact, I believe they were on site during the fly.

Re:Scary? (5, Informative)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657818)

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.

Question (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657880)

How many flights did it take to compile this footage? What the max range/time that this platform is capable of?

Re:Question (3, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657920)

Maximum tested range is 27 miles. Maximum estimated range by their calculations is 120 miles.

Re:Question (-1, Troll)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658802)

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?

Re:Question (-1, Troll)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658250)

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.

Re:Question (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658590)

Heavy metals are heavy. toxic chemicals are so much lighter.

Re:Question (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658818)

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.

Re:Question (3, Informative)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658270)

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.

Re:Scary? (1)

espiesp (1251084) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657914)

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.

Re:Scary? (2)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658276)

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.

Re:Scary? (2)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657940)

No laws were broken but they thought the'd show up anyway? What is wrong with this country.

Re:Scary? (3, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658004)

A pound of Semtex and the fun begins. Cheap missiles to kill politicians always gets the cops running.

Re:Scary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658312)

Actually, in DC Comics, there was a hitman called the Aviator who used explosives and remote control aeroplanes.

Re:Scary? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658392)

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

Re:Scary? (3, Insightful)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658086)

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....

Re:Scary? (4, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658152)

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!

F*(K the panic do something awesome (5, Interesting)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658000)

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.

Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome (5, Insightful)

serbanp (139486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658298)

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...

Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658314)

That doesn't make this activity insane. That makes the governmental idiots insane.

Re:F*(K the panic do something awesome (4, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658606)

No. It makes the electorate insane.

You get the government you want.

Re:Scary? (4, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658018)

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.

Re:Scary? (2)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658146)

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

O. B. Lada (5, Funny)

silverspell (1556765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658466)

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...

Re:Scary? (2)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658198)

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.

Re:Scary? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658354)

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.

Re:Scary? (5, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658576)

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.

Re:Scary? (3, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658634)

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 ;-)

Re:Scary? (2)

baKanale (830108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658280)

...apparently no laws were broken.

Since when has that ever stopped the cops?

Re:Scary? (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658474)

Since whenever he made that video, apparently.

Re:Scary? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658786)

He notified authorities and had their permission. In fact, I believe they were on site during the fly.

Was DHS invited.

Re:Scary? (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658184)

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.

Re:Scary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658398)

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.

Re:Scary? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658726)

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.

Who gives a shit? (-1, Troll)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657772)

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.

Re:Who gives a shit? (5, Insightful)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657786)

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.

Re:Who gives a shit? (2)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658026)

  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

Re:Who gives a shit? (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658302)

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.

Re:Who gives a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658318)

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!

Re:Who gives a shit? (2)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657894)

Worse than that, I think this story might be a dupe.

Re:Who gives a shit? (4, Insightful)

freeweed (309734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657952)

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.

Re:Who gives a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658694)

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 ...

how long will *that* hobby last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34657778)

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".

Re:how long will *that* hobby last? (3, Informative)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658032)

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.

Re:how long will *that* hobby last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658292)

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.

DHS (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657782)

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?

Re:DHS (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657960)

I think the phrase you're looking for is "weapons of mass destruction related program activities."

Re:DHS (3, Interesting)

plopez (54068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657978)

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.

Re:DHS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658030)

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.

Re:DHS (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658192)

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.

Re:DHS (3, Insightful)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658236)

Or box cutters. Or shoes.

More Details here... (5, Informative)

stockard (1431131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657798)

According to this earlier article [avweb.com] , the police and TSA talked to him, but surprisingly didn't charge him with anything. He said they were "more curious than confrontational."

Re:More Details here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34657878)

He said (after they saw his skin color and lack of foreign accent) they were "more curious than confrontational."

Re:More Details here... (3, Interesting)

nanospook (521118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657892)

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..

Re:More Details here... (2, Insightful)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657994)

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.

Re:More Details here... (4, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658040)

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.

RC Killers (1)

dingram17 (839714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658406)

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.

Re:More Details here... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658608)

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 [youtube.com]

Re:More Details here... (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658764)

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.

Re:More Details here... (1)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657942)

Let me guess, they are just as scared of you as you are of them?

Re:More Details here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34657968)

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.)

Re:More Details here... (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658138)

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.

I can see this crossing over with free-roaming gam (0)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657824)

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!

I did this in Hong Kong :) (5, Interesting)

bronney (638318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657844)

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 [youtube.com]

Here's one closer to buildings :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrWyOJmEvY4 [youtube.com]

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.

Re:I did this in Hong Kong :) (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658188)

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? [youtube.com]

Nice... but (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657864)

Way to many edits. Destroyed the flow

If only... (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657866)

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

Statute of Liberty? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657868)

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.

Re:Statute of Liberty? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658322)

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.

Re:Statute of Liberty? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658526)

How does one buzz it?

You post it to Google Buzz?

Expect him to be arrested any second (1)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657882)

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

Cool tech (1)

mveloso (325617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657902)

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).

Re:Cool tech (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657934)

No lag with line of site 2.4ghz camera at only 27 miles max.

Call the cops (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657908)

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.

Re:Call the cops (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34657984)

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.

Re:Call the cops (2)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658224)

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???!!!!!

I flew Ravens... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34657924)

...in Ramadi in 2005-2006.

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

Re:I flew Ravens... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658284)

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.

Gas or electric? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658034)

Come on, some technical info on the plane?

Re:Gas or electric? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658142)

Dear Terrorist:

As per your request, I am sending some EMAiLS [slashdot.org] your way.

Signed,

President Sarah Palin

Argh! (4, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658084)

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.

Re:Argh! (5, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658128)

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

Re:Argh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658196)

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.

Re:Argh! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658534)

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.

Re:Argh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658714)

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,

United Cowards of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658510)

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.

Re:Argh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658644)

I suggest that we deprecate the current Constitution and take these gems of wisdom as "The Constitution V2.0".

Re:Argh! (1)

imidan (559239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658696)

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.

Regulations following.... (1)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658104)

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).

Re:Regulations following.... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658296)

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... (5, Interesting)

virgnarus (1949790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658120)

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.

Re:Cool, however... (0)

garymortimer (1882326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658282)

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

Re:Cool, however... (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658328)

Where in the USA is FPV flying illegal?

"Harrowing?" (3, Insightful)

AxeTheMax (1163705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658326)

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 [reference.com]

Re:"Harrowing?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34658722)

How about you link to the right word?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harrowing

Aerial Dispersant (1)

Katchu (1036242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658336)

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

Unwatchable (2)

bytesex (112972) | more than 3 years ago | (#34658370)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>