Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

YouTube duff advise

Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
126
Reaction score
65
Age
53
Location
UK
so just saw this.
Wish they'd get their facts right before giving out duff info. So he thinks 150m is ok, so goes at 160m just to be safe.
So if he's doing a commercial job with the inspire today, he must have a PFAW right???
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The kid has a good eye and steady hand with the camera.

And I drive in flip flops, or thongs as we used to call them in the 70s and 80s. That is when I'm not driving barefoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigdz
Another Cockwomble goes flying in the USA

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Another Cockwomble goes flying in the USA

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
OMG - it's such a shame that when obstacle avoidance kicked in and it climbed in altitude it didn't wipe out on that piece of steel.
At least it would have kept this idiot out of the air for a while!
 
so just saw this.
Wish they'd get their facts right before giving out duff info. So he thinks 150m is ok, so goes at 160m just to be safe.
So if he's doing a commercial job with the inspire today, he must have a PFAW right???
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
He seems to be an expert on the Air Navigation Order and 166/7 because he shouts about how everyone has got it wrong and he is right.
Seems to think that flying at 160m agl is acceptable! :rolleyes:
 
so just saw this.
Wish they'd get their facts right before giving out duff info. So he thinks 150m is ok, so goes at 160m just to be safe.
So if he's doing a commercial job with the inspire today, he must have a PFAW right???
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Why do people post this crap here?
 
This is exactly why rules and a online course alone will never work.
This guy is too stupid to interpit even the stupidest of basic aviation rules.
He's however not to stupid to drive a car and to edit a clip, be it with the ever boring and soooo 2015 speed changes.

Video from these kids nowadays is like badly produced hiphop to me.
 
Dude probably wasn't as close to that bridge as we think he was. OA kicks in at what - about 25ft - 30ft? Of course that looks like the GW Bridge in NYC so it's huge and even if this guy was 75ft away from the tower and main cable it would look super close.

On the bright side, OA looks very promising.
 
Last edited:
OMG - it's such a shame that when obstacle avoidance kicked in and it climbed in altitude it didn't wipe out on that piece of steel.
At least it would have kept this idiot out of the air for a while!

OTH, if it had hit something it might have landed on a car on the road below, or a motorcyclist.

There are so many idiots that should be removed from the gene pool but they tend to be prolific breeders.


Brian
 
There are so many idiots that should be removed from the gene pool but they tend to be prolific breeders.
We can clearly find the evidence for your thesis in Youpuke, they thrive by getting lots of views.

Morons, for them altitude is just vertical distance.
Someone in the UK should report this guy. He's obviously NOT a licensed pilot yet he claims to do professional jobs. What I hate most is the thought of kids (or really stupid grown ups) who will try to copy him, thinking that they are following the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Editor
We can clearly find the evidence for your thesis in Youpuke, they thrive by getting lots of views.

Morons, for them altitude is just vertical distance.
Someone in the UK should report this guy. He's obviously NOT a licensed pilot yet he claims to do professional jobs. What I hate most is the thought of kids (or really stupid grown ups) who will try to copy him, thinking that they are following the rules.
Looking at how dangerously he flies in another one of his videos (behind obstacles and way beyond VLOS with RTH likely to kick in at any minute) I doubt he will have an Inspire for too much longer.
The problem is - rich kids daddy will just buy him another one.
It's concerning that he is putting it out there as 'Drone 101' for his spotty adolescent followers who will think this kind of flying is acceptable.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Looking at how dangerously he flies in another one of his videos (behind obstacles and way beyond VLOS with RTH likely to kick in at any minute) I doubt he will have an Inspire for too much longer.
The problem is - rich kids daddy will just buy him another one.
It's concerning that he is putting it out there as 'Drone 101' for his spotty adolescent followers who will think this kind of flying is acceptable.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Jesus, you just want to reach through the monitor and punch the little sht in the face.

I do hope when he crashes his drone, and he will if he hasn't already, that this ends his fascination with them.


Brian
 
When he crashes he can buy another. And another. Unfortunately he has a far larger following than this site, and his 'advice' will be soaked up by many impressionable youngsters. I wish the CAA would reach out to him, feel his collar so to speak, but then encourage him to do the training (daddy can pay) - he can then espouse safe and responsible flying and possibly be a driver for safety and progress amongst the younger members of the drone flying community.

Who am I kidding, he'll just carry on being a cockwomble...
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Editor
Youtube/social media is the culprit, giving all the idiots in the world with a smartphone a stage, to show how stupid they are. Dropping coconuts from 300ft, BLOS flying over cities and highways, driving >300Km/hr at night on a public highway, commencing suicide in front of the camera, even terrorists POV, how to make a bomb, etc, etc. And it's getting worse every day.

What kind of society will that bring us a few years from now?
 
Youtube/social media is the culprit, giving all the idiots in the world with a smartphone a stage, to show how stupid they are. Dropping coconuts from 300ft, BLOS flying over cities and highways, driving >300Km/hr at night on a public highway, commencing suicide in front of the camera, even terrorists POV, how to make a bomb, etc, etc. And it's getting worse every day.

What kind of society will that bring us a few years from now?

giphy.gif
 
Incredible. Just seen this, I can't believe the CAA haven't dealt with this guy. Clearly he's incorrect with his talk of 150 or 160m agl being acceptable in the UK.

However, he also presumes something that I think others may be presuming:

I have heard people elsewhere who are slightly more mature/ informed suggesting that if, for example, someone flies more than 50 metres above a person, vehicle, vessel or structure under their control they have somehow avoided transgressing article 167 2(c) of the ANO 2009. This is on the grounds of them not being "within 50 metres" of anything.This makes no sense to me though as clearly equipment failure or similar could lead to someone or something at ground level being hit. And I was taught originally that separation distances operate horizontally (like a huge vertical cylinder around people or property.... a cylinder which is 400ft high....!

Any thoughts? Am I reading things correctly?
 
Incredible. Just seen this, I can't believe the CAA haven't dealt with this guy. Clearly he's incorrect with his talk of 150 or 160m agl being acceptable in the UK.

However, he also presumes something that I think others may be presuming:

I have heard people elsewhere who are slightly more mature/ informed suggesting that if, for example, someone flies more than 50 metres above a person, vehicle, vessel or structure under their control they have somehow avoided transgressing article 167 2(c) of the ANO 2009. This is on the grounds of them not being "within 50 metres" of anything.This makes no sense to me though as clearly equipment failure or similar could lead to someone or something at ground level being hit. And I was taught originally that separation distances operate horizontally (like a huge vertical cylinder around people or property.... a cylinder which is 400ft high....!

Any thoughts? Am I reading things correctly?
The Cylinder is more for Airports etc. In UK, its 50m in under 7kg, and NOT a congested area. I work on the 50m dome over something I have no control over.
If you work on the zone upto 400ft, you would never be able to work, as you can't fly 400ft+ under a standard PFAW (if that makes sense).
This may/may-not help
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,370
Messages
211,038
Members
35,757
Latest member
kiranroy