By Terry Dunnon May 7, 2014 at 7 a.m.How To Get Into Hobby RC: The Phantom Menace

Like many of you, I watched Will and Norm’s video review of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ with great anticipation. I’m still flying the original Phantom, so I was eager to see the capabilities afforded by the newest model. I was very impressed with the footage they captured, and now I covet their quad. I was equally unimpressed, however, with a few ill-advised things that they did and said during the video.

Photo credit: Eric Cheng

As relative newcomers to the RC flying community, many of our hosts’ infractions can be forgiven based on ignorance of the dos and don’ts. Much of this stuff is just not intuitive. Yet, as communicators of the technology, there is an underlying burden to lead by a learned and proper example. I discreetly pointed out a thing or two to Norm, as did several readers. Norm asked me to critique the video and use this column as a teaching tool for the readers (and the staff). So here are some lessons I think could be learned from watching the Tested review, including a few of my own RC indiscretions as examples.

It’s All Fun and Games Until…

No matter what your particular interest(s) in RC is, people are in it to have fun. When you start bringing up safety or legal concerns, it’s like you’re talking about saturated fats at McDonalds. People just want to be left alone to enjoy their RC widgets and Big Macs without any heavy thoughts. I get that. The unfortunate reality is that operating RC vehicles comes tethered to some very real hazards that you must be cognizant of.

I think that the relevant concerns can be broken down into three major categories: safety, property damage, and liberty. I’ll touch a bit on each of these topics while using infractions pulled from the Tested video as examples. Many of the lessons are not specific to multi-rotors and can be applied to any RC aircraft.

I watched the review several times to prepare for this article and my opinion on a few things changed with each viewing. I felt like I needed a second opinion, so I contacted Patrick Sherman. Patrick is a cofounder of the Roswell Flight Test Crew and an RC writing colleague of mine. I’ve never actually met Patrick in person, but I have read several of his RC-related articles and have respect for his expertise. I shot an email to Patrick with a link to the review saying “Watch this and tell me what you think.” A few of his comments are interjected along with mine.

Safety

Let’s begin by talking about some fundamental aspects of avoiding injury to yourself and others. One of the biggest problems with RC vehicles is that most of the world considers them to be toys, which most people consider safe. The first hurdle is merely acknowledging that RC equipment can be very dangerous. Yes, people have died as a result of RC-related accidents. Countless more are injured on a regular basis.

Perhaps the biggest cause of RC injuries is propeller strikes, which happens to coincide with the most egregious of the offenses I saw in the video.

Perhaps the biggest cause of RC injuries is propeller strikes, which happens to coincide with the most egregious of the offenses I saw in the video. Back in the office, Will and Norm talk about the benign danger posed by the Phantom’s props. Neither is willing to actually put a finger in harm’s way, which gives me hope for their future. A blood blister is probably the minimum injury you could expect. In the ongoing skin versus propeller saga, propellers ALWAYS win! Modelers have sustained all degrees of cuts from spinning propellers. I know of two cases where RC helicopters effectively decapitated someone (the pilot in both instances). I have personally had run-ins with propellers on two occasions. Both were bloody, unpleasant affairs. The second incident caused nerve damage which took months to heal. Anyone needing more proof should google something like “RC prop injury” and grab a vomit bag.

Electric-powered aircraft pose a particular threat for prop injuries for several reasons. First of all, they are so quiet that they don’t sound dangerous. The noise of an internal-combustion (IC) engine is a constant reminder of the threat. People tend to let their guard down with the soothing hum of electric motors. Trust me, the prop doesn’t care what type of motor is spinning it, it cuts just the same.

The Cuisinart in my kitchen spins an enclosed 4 inch blade with up to 250 watts of power. By comparison, my DJI Phantom uses slightly more power to whirl 4 exposed 8 inch propellers. Which is more likely to cause injury?

Another deceptive aspect of electric motors is that they can go from static to full power with no more effort than the flip of a switch, whether intentional or accidental. The Phantom actually requires coordinated stick movements to arm the throttle. This is a great, but unfortunately rare, prerequisite. I’ve accidentally nudged the throttle with my transmitter’s neck strap when picking up an airplane. I’ve also sent a plane zooming across my workbench when I inadvertently flipped the wrong switch on my transmitter. Thankfully no one was injured, but I did damage several airplanes. Two good rules of thumb are as follows:

1. Once you plug in the battery, treat an electric aircraft as if the prop(s) could start spinning at any time (i.e. keep your body away from the prop arc).

2. Always remove the prop (or disable the motor) when working on a model. The same goes for the drive wheels on an RC car.

Once you plug in the battery, always treat an electric aircraft with extreme caution. Simple things can make the propeller(s) come to life at inopportune times.With electric motors, the danger does not go away once the prop hits you.

The last point that I’ll make specific to electric motors is that the danger does not go away once the prop hits you. An IC motor will typically stall when the prop hits a finger or leg. Electric motors, however, just pull more amps. Until the electric circuit is broken, it’s going to try to keep spinning…perhaps causing multiple cuts.

Another common way to cause injury to humans with RC aircraft is to actually fly into them. This is another case where the danger level is often downplayed or dismissed because of the toy-like nature of RC vehicles. Toy or not, Force still equals Mass x Acceleration, so RC models can do harm. The best way to avoid flying into people is to avoid flying over people.

Every organized flying field will have an established flightline, an imaginary wall behind which no model aircraft should fly. This provides a safe haven for people to park their cars, prepare their models, or watch the action without significant threat of being hit by a wayward aircraft. Yes, accidents still happen, but the flightline barrier mitigates the risk significantly.

When you choose to fly at a public place, it is up to you to define the barriers. Let’s say you are at a city park. You can’t expect anyone else there to heed the danger posed by your model. Remember, they are thinking of your model as a toy…and surely you wouldn’t bring a dangerous toy to the park. The burden to adapt to the situation is completely yours.

I’ve had people send their dogs and their children to chase my airplanes while I flew at a park. Even at established and clearly marked RC flying fields, I’ve seen clueless people drive their cars down the runway while people were flying. Another time, a group of equestrians wandered onto a busy flying field and ignored our frantic pleas to get their horses off of the runway. One flyer had to ditch his plane to avoid hitting them.

I repeat: The rest of the world is not afraid of your silly flying toys. Keeping those people safe from your model is your job.

Returning to the video, the opening sequence includes a clip of a Phantom flying directly above Will and Norm. Patrick and I disagree somewhat on this scenario. Patrick says, “I’m concerned that the very casual nature of the video will encourage folks watching at home to go out and do the same thing.” While I agree that this is a bit dangerous, it doesn’t cause me too much heartburn. Everyone involved is an adult who is aware of what’s going on and has accepted the risk. So my personal response here is: “Have fun, but be careful and don’t whine about it if you get hurt.”

Anytime you fly over people or things, you risk crashing into them and causing harm. Ask yourself if it is worth it to get the shot. PS – The sedan in the intersection is driven by a jerk.

Where I take exception is when they fly the Phantom over a fairly busy street. In this case, the people at risk of a wayward Phantom have no idea of the danger and have consented to nothing. Granted, the risk is somewhat low. But let’s face it; RC aircraft crash all the time for a multitude of reasons. If you happen to be over a crowd of people when that happens, that would be a very bad day for everyone. As Mr. Sherman points out, “Multi-rotors must always be flown as if they are going to fall out of the sky without warning.” He adds that the only excuse that you could offer to the victim of a plummeting quad would be, “Yeah, but I was getting a really cool shot!”

Property DamageIf you’re not mentally or financially equipped to deal with a total-loss on any given flight, maybe RC flying isn’t for you.

When I talk property damage, it has nothing to do with the potential damage to whatever model you are flying. Every time you lift off, you are accepting the risk of a potential fly-away or catastrophic crash. If you’re not mentally or financially equipped to deal with a total-loss on any given flight, maybe RC flying isn’t for you. Go buy yourself a bowling ball.

The damage that I’m talking about regards the innocent things that you might fly into. Just last year, I accidentally flew one of my models into a car. I lost concentration long enough for my airplane to dart behind the flightline. Rather than dumping the airplane into the ground as I should have, I tried to save it and center punched the door of a parked truck. My little 15 ounce foam airplane was slightly damaged, but my bill for the damaged truck was over $600 (in a strange twist of irony, the truck belonged to my insurance agent - oh how we laughed...eventually). This happened at a RC club flying field with everything arranged by the book. Taking larger, faster models to uncontrolled environments only increases the likelihood and severity of an expensive mistake.

As public multi-rotor flying locations go, the park on Treasure Island doesn’t seem so bad. Personally, I’d be a bit nervous with rookies flying near so much water. But that’s another purely personal risk that would not affect anyone else…save for the children subjected to the profanity-riddled tirade that would surely follow an ocean “landing”.

Sometimes you have to fly close to things to get the shot you want, as we see with the Bliss Dance statue on Treasure Island. Are you prepared to pay up if you goof up?

The feature of the park that gave me the most concern was the statue Bliss Dance. It appears to be covered in a wire mesh that could be damaged by a propeller or the body of the Phantom. I’m not suggesting that the statue should have precluded their flying at that location. In fact, I rather enjoyed the aerial footage of the statue. My point is simply to be cognizant of the potential for damage and to be prepared to settle up if the worst should happen.

Liberty

As things stand now, anyone with the money can go out and buy a Phantom. You don’t need a license, a background check, or even a seven day waiting period. Perhaps the most probing question you’ll hear will be about the security code on your credit card. What you get in a return is an extremely capable quadrotor that requires no prior knowledge to operate.

The future could be a different story. There are well-publicized examples of people doing things with multi-rotors that are potentially very dangerous. Flying at high altitude near airports is of particular concern. Even DJI has addressed this issue with a firmware update that gradually limits the Phantom’s maximum altitude near airports. The consequence of a run-in with a multi-rotor and a full-size airplane of any type is not something any of us ever wants to contemplate. Yet there are people who foolishly tempt this fate just for the off chance of capturing some unique video.

For every imprudent multi-rotor video that appears on YouTube, the odds of having restrictions placed on the entire RC community increases ever more.

For every imprudent multi-rotor video that appears on YouTube, the odds of having restrictions placed on the entire RC community increases ever more. We are currently in limbo as the FAA decides just how to manage this expanding herd of multi-rotors in their airspace. Let’s not give them ammunition to bring draconian measures against us. Right now, it seems that the only organization fighting for our right to fly RC is the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). They’ve made significant headway by touting that the modeling community polices itself with common sense guidelines. I highly recommend that all flyers join the AMA to support their anti-regulatory efforts*. Even if you decide not to join the AMA, you should aspire to follow their lead.

Some people defend their cavalier attitude towards reckless flying behavior by touting their rights as an American citizen. Well sure, you do have the right to be as foolhardy as you wish. That courtesy ends, however, when your actions invoke the same risks upon other people. As seen in the previous examples, transferring risk happens any time you choose to fly over people or their stuff.

At no point in this article have I, or will I talk about anything being against the law. With various local ordinances and pending national regulations, that topic could be a real can of worms. And who knows the legal ramifications of hauling a camera over private houses (or baseball stadiums)? Whether certain things are illegal is really not the point anyway. The bigger goal is for each of us to analyze our flying habits and determine if we are inadvertently putting the health, property, or right-to-fly of other people at risk. All that being said, be aware that the FAA does pursue blatant violators.

The good news is that Will and Norm did not do anything that I would consider particularly foolhardy. By my calculations, they were about 15 miles from both SFO and OAK airports. What caught my attention was that they were flying over an urban area using only the video feedback to navigate. This is commonly called First Person View (FPV) flying. From the post-flight conversation, I gather that they did this at very high and very low altitudes. Even if that didn’t happen, let’s assume it did for the sake of argument.

Flying by video feed alone severely restricts your situational awareness. Here, a Phantom narrowly misses an unexpectedly tall sailboat mast that couldn’t be seen until it was too late.

The risk with using only the video feed is that your situational awareness is severely compromised. This is especially true at high altitude where you could encounter full-scale traffic or low-altitude where you might encounter inanimate stuff. I think my point is illustrated perfectly in the recent Quadcopter Fun Flight video where Jeremy narrowly missed a sailboat mast while flying via video. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he had drifted just a little further left. I’m glad we didn’t have to find out.

I personally feel that FPV is an advanced skill that should only be attempted once you are completely comfortable with line-of-sight flying.

People do FPV flying all the time, although not usually under the same circumstances as Will and Norm. You will typically see flights over open country and at altitudes likely to avoid both aircraft and ground-based obstructions. Even better is to have a spotter next to the pilot who can see the model and keep an eye out for trouble. Furthermore, I personally feel that FPV is an advanced skill that should only be attempted once you are completely comfortable with line-of-sight flying. I think that you need to develop your reactions and confidence before you place yourself in a situation where trouble arrives in a hurry.

Conclusion

If nothing else, I hope the take-away from this article will be that some flyers realize that we are all in this together. I encourage everyone to take advantage of this fabulous new technology, but also to do so with an open-minded world view. Be artistic, be bold, be unique. Get that unique perspective that you never could before. Just keep in mind that it may be more than your neck, your property, and your right to fly that you are putting at risk.

My thanks to Will and Norm for being good sports and allowing me to use them as examples. Thanks also to Patrick Sherman for sharing his insight and expertise on piloting multi-rotors. In the next RC article, I will share my recent experiences with RC boats.

In the interest of full disclosure: I provide freelance articles to the AMA periodicals Model Aviation and Park Pilot. I am not an employee of the organization, nor do I receive compensation for encouraging membership. I simply believe in their mission.

如何操作业余RC：幽灵的威胁

how进入爱好RC：幽灵的威胁

像你们许多人一样，我看了会有很大的期待DJI Phantom 2视觉+规范的视频回顾。我仍然在飞行着原始的幻象，所以我渴望看到最新的模式所提供的能力。我和他们拍下的画面印象很深，现在我觊觎四。我也同样不以为然，但是，有一些不明智的事情，他们说在视频。

photo信用：Eric Cheng

相对新的遥控飞行社区，我们的许多主持人的违规行为可以原谅无知的基础上的注意事项。这个东西太多只是不直观。然而，作为技术的传播者，有一个潜在的负担，导致一个教训和适当的例子。我谨慎地指出一个或两个规范的东西，因为没有几个读者。规范要求我批判的视频，并使用此列作为一个教学工具，为读者（和工作人员）。所以这里有一些教训，我认为可以从看测试复习学过的，包括一些我自己的RC失言的例子。

这是所有的娱乐和游戏直到…

无论什么你特别感兴趣的（S）的钢筋混凝土，人都是有乐趣的。当你开始把安全和法律问题，就像你说的饱和脂肪在麦当劳。人们只想独自享受自己的RC部件和巨无霸没有任何沉重的思想。我得到了。不幸的现实是，经营RC工具是拴在一些非常真实的危险，你必须认识到的。

我认为相关的问题可以分成三大类：安全、财产损失，和自由。我摸了一下对这些主题，而使用违规从测试视频为例。许多课是不特定的多转子可适用于任何遥控飞机。

我看着复习几次准备这篇文章，对一些事情一看改变了我的看法。我想我需要一个意见，所以我联系舍曼帕特里克。帕特里克是一个创始人罗斯威尔试飞员和RC写我的同事。我从来没有见过帕特里克，但我已经读了一些他的钢筋混凝土相关的文章，并尊重他的专业知识。我拍了一封电子邮件给帕特里克一个链接的评论说：“看这，告诉我你是怎么想的。”他的一些评论插话随着我。

安全
让我们开始谈论避免伤害自己和他人的一些基本方面。其中一个最大的问题是，大多数的世界认为他们是玩具，大多数人认为安全。第一道障碍仅仅是承认钢筋混凝土设备是很危险的。是的，人们因钢筋混凝土事故而死亡。更多的是定期受伤。

也许钢筋混凝土损伤的最大原因是螺旋桨击打，这恰好是最恶劣的罪行我看到视频。
也许钢筋混凝土损伤的最大原因是螺旋桨击打，这恰好是最严重的我在视频中看到的犯罪。回到办公室，将和规范谈论的幽灵的道具所带来的良性危险。也不愿意把手指放在伤害的方式，这让我希望他们的未来。血的水泡可能是你所期望的最小伤害。在正在进行的皮肤与螺旋桨的传奇，螺旋桨总是赢！建模者的持续度削减从旋转的螺旋桨。我知道两种情况下，RC直升机有效被斩首的人（在这两种情况下，飞行员）。我个人有了口角两次螺旋桨。两人都是血腥的，不愉快的事情。二次事件造成神经损伤，历时数月治愈。任何需要更多证据的人都应该有一个像“钢筋混凝土支柱受伤”、一个呕吐袋的东西，而对于一些原因，标准的电动飞机在电动飞机上造成了特别的威胁。首先，他们是如此的安静，以至于他们没有很危险。内燃机的噪声（IC）引擎是一个不断威胁的提醒。人们倾向于让他们的后卫与舒缓的嗡嗡的电动马达。相信我，道具不在乎什么类型的电机是旋转的，它削减了一样。

the Cuisinart在厨房里旋转一个封闭的4英寸的刀片具有高达250瓦的功率。相比之下，我的DJI Phantom使用稍微更多的权力4曝光8英寸螺旋桨旋转。这更容易造成伤害？“电动汽车的另一个欺骗性的方面是，他们可以从静态到完全的力量，没有更多的努力，而不是一个开关，无论是故意或偶然。幻象实际上需要协调棒的动作来武装油门。这是一个伟大的，但不幸的是罕见的先决条件。我不小心碰油门我的发射机的颈圈时拿起一架飞机。我还派了一架飞机在我的工作台放大，当我不经意地把错误的开关打开我的发射机。幸好没有人受伤，但我确实损坏了几架飞机。双好的经验法则如下：< /对。一旦你插入电池，把一个电动飞机当作支柱（即）可以随时开始旋转（即保持你的身体远离支柱弧）。当在模型上工作时，总要拆下支柱（或禁用电机）。同样，在一个钢筋混凝土车驱动轮。

once你插上电池，总是把电动飞机非常谨慎。简单的事情可以使螺旋桨（S）在不合适的时间来生活。电动机，危险没有一次道具打你走了。
我会具体到电动机的最后一点是，危险并没有消失，一旦道具打你。一个集成电路的电机通常会失速时的支柱打一个手指或腿。然而，电动马达只是拉多了安培。在电路被打破之前，它将尝试着不停地旋转……可能引起多个切割。< /对了，另一种常见的方法是使人与钢筋混凝土飞机在一起，实际上是飞进他们的。这是另一种情况下，危险程度往往淡化或解雇是因为玩具像RC汽车自然。玩具或不，力仍然等于质量×加速，因此，钢筋混凝土模型可以做伤害。为了避免飞到人们是避免飞越人的最好方式。

每个组织飞行领域将有一个既定的航线，一个虚构的墙后面没有模型飞机要飞。这提供了一个安全的避风港，人们停车，准备他们的模型，或观看的行动没有重大威胁被一个任性的飞机。是的，交通事故仍时有发生，但航线阻挡层的风险显著。

当你飞在一个公共场所，它是由你来定义的障碍。让我们说你是在一个城市公园。你不能指望任何人都会注意到你的模式所带来的危险。记住，他们在想你的模型作为一个玩具，当然，你不会带一个危险的玩具到公园。适应形势的负担完全是你的，我有人送他们的狗和他们的孩子去追逐我的飞机，而我飞在公园。即使在建立和明确标明遥控飞行领域，我看到无能的人开车沿着跑道而人飞。还有一次，一组骑马来到一个繁忙的飞行领域，忽视了我们的疯狂的请求得到他们的马匹离开跑道。一张传单不得不抛弃他的飞机，以避免撞到他们。< /对我重复：世界上的其他人是不会害怕你愚蠢的飞行玩具。让那些人安全的从你的模型中是你的工作。< /对返回的视频，打开序列包括一个幻象的剪辑，直接在上面将和规范。帕特里克和我对这种情况有点不同。帕特里克说，“我担心的视频很随意自然会鼓励人们在家里看出去，做同样的事情。而我认为这是有点危险，也不会引起我太多的心痛。每个人都是一个成年人，他知道什么正在发生并且已经接受了风险。所以我个人的反应是：“玩得开心，但要小心，如果你受伤了，不要抱怨。”

anytime你飞过去的人或事，你可能坠毁并造成伤害。问问你自己是否值得去获得它。PS -在十字路口的轿车是由一个混蛋，我的例外是当他们飞的幽灵在一个相当繁忙的街道。在这种情况下，人们在一个任性的幽灵的风险已经不知道的危险，并已同意无。当然，风险也有点低。但让我们面对它；钢筋混凝土飞机坠毁的原因是多的原因。如果你碰巧在人群中出现，那对每个人都是一个非常糟糕的日子。正如舍曼先生所指出的，“多转子必须飞好像要从天上掉下来没有警告。”他补充道，你可以提供一个暴跌四受害者的唯一理由是，“是的，但我是一个很酷的镜头！“< / P >财产damageIf你没精神或经济上具备处理任何给定的飞行总的损失，也许RC飞行不是你。
我说话时的财产损失，没有任何模型你飞行的潜在危害。每次你提起，你都会接受一个潜在的危险或灾难性的事故。如果你没有精神上或财政上的装备来处理任何给定的飞行的总损失，也许对你的飞行不适合你。去给自己买一个保龄球吧，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是，我要说的是。就在去年，我不小心把我的一个模型变成了一辆汽车。我失去了我的飞机的浓度足够长的飞镖后面的航线。我试着去救它，把它的中心打在了门上，而不是把飞机排到地面上