Not what you'd want to see

Discussions about anything in the news

Not what you'd want to see

Postby GSVNoFixedAbode » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:12 pm

From the twitter feeds today - not what you want to see when flying your 'drone'
Image
GSVNoFixedAbode
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 am

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby aardvark_admin » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:18 pm

LOL... at least the person flying it wasn't being a dick-head and overflying people at the time.

It's classic though!
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby Joel » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:53 am

looks like a convenient way to lose some unneeded weight too increase flight time.
Joel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:58 am

Yeah... he should be glad to be rid of that battery -- it clearly wasn't properly balanced... it's tipping to one side as it falls :D
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby Joel » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:02 am

Its not a nanatech battery, probably a good thing its gone skydiving.


Hope this guy has a rescue drone to go and collect the battery and/or aircraft.
Joel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:47 am

Don't mention "rescue drone" because you'll attract Roddy to this thread ;-)
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby Joel » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:28 pm

Oh that was a typo I meant to type Remote Controlled Aviation Asset Recovery Vehicle.
Joel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:52 pm

By the way, we won't be flying in the park again... far too dangerous apparently

The SWDC has said that it can not allow us to fly in the park because it's against CAA regulations (within 4Km of the airfield). When I asked the CEO of the council if this means that they will not allow people to break CAA regulations on council property he said "that is correct".

Then I showed him this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6nBeeAogp8 and asked why these people were still allowed to fly RC models at the airfield --since they'd been breaking CAA regulations there for over two years.

He said the council was still working through dealing with this issue (at the airfield) and there were certain processes that must be followed.

However, if we fly at the park *we* will be immediately tresspassed. Apparently favoured parties get the benefit of "processes" that take over 24 months -- we do not.

How even-handed is that? And people wonder why I criticise this council for its buffoonery and bias.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby Joel » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:57 pm

could it be argued that since the council have not taken action on the people in your video for breaking several rules, if we were to be trespassed, for flying again at the park due to CAA regulations that the council are picking and choosing what CAA regulations to follow and since actions have been visibly ignoring the issue that the airfield that they cannot take action on you unless they do so with the people on the airfield as everyone is within the 4km.

I know this may have been said before and that for the most part the council are set in their ways of doing favours for friends.

one example that I can think of was that document from one of their recent meetings looking at costs and income from the field.

They were looking into how to generate more income from the airfield and had listed all the current ways they make money from the airfield and surrounding gokart and motorcross track, it did mention about charging the SWIM club (not sure if correct term) about $2 per member per day of flight. however payment has been rather infrequent or not at all and the council has not sought to enforce this even though from reading the document I believed that was the agreed upon arrangement.


"Model Aircraft
Model aircraft have been permitted to use the airport in accordance with Airport Rules. There have
been a number of different groups and individuals who have used the facility. A fee of $2 per
person per hour has been set by Council, although payment has been very infrequent. As part of
the rules, flyers are required to inform Council when they are using the airport, however these have not been adhered to or enforced. There have been a number of issues related to the use of model aircraft at the airport that have involved the CAA and Model Flying New Zealand. Model
aircraft are only allowed to fly at or within 4 km of an airport at the discretion of the airport owner
(being SWDC). The ongoing issues with model flying need to be addressed at an operational level
within Council however it is noted that the adverse effects from certain behaviour has impacted
negatively on the reputation of the airfield for other users, including aviation. "

taken from between pages 24 and 25

source: http://www.southwaikato.govt.nz/our-cou ... PUBLIC.pdf

or and click on "Council - 22 January 2015 (Supplementary Agenda)"

http://www.southwaikato.govt.nz/our-cou ... fault.aspx


this turned out to be a bit longer than I had intended but I think it is a fairly valid point regarding the council I hope its easy to understand.
Joel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm

Re: Not what you'd want to see

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:05 pm

Yes, one could argue that the council (governance and executive) are bent and crooked -- but of course, *I* would never make such an allegation -- even though the overwhelming weight of evidence might support it.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Next

Return to General News Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron