Another RC heli fatality

[Gixxer]

What needs to happen, as Mark_T said earlier, is that people need to stop seeing these as toys and realise that they are dangerous.

I see the article linked to in the OP has had its headline changed from:

Man killed in accident involving toy helicopter

to

Man killed in remote-control helicopter accident

Maybe people are starting to wise up.

[buzzbird]

What about the medics who have to scrape his body of the rocks, or the family who will never see him again, or his friends who witness a horrific accident? What if he'd smacked that guy holding the balloons. And lets not forget the skydiver who hit the bridge at over 100mph, he could have taken out a spectator. I understand risks and I understand thrillseekers but come on, lets not endanger others just to show off and get a buzz.

Well, scraping him off is an inconvenience, but it's not going to put them in a hospital or a morgue.
My point about Corliss, going by that video, is he's not doing it where he's likely to land on someone. I could understand if he was above a packed street, but he's not. The only one who's going to get hurt is him.

[AndyThilo]

The possibility of a failure, combined with a set of blades spinning at 2000+rpm, dictates that what we do is inherently dangerous, and as such all heli events should carry a warning to this effect, then let people decide for themselves if they want to subject themselves to the possibility of injury/death.

This country doesn't work like that anymore, the onus is on the operators and the organisers to provide a safe experience. Processes should be put in place to limit this kind of occurrence. Make pilots fly at least 20yds from themselves , no one other than the pilot and spotter to be on the flight line, everyone else behind a protective barrier like some kind of mesh fence that you can see through, etc.. etc.. I work in the world of health and safety at Heathrow and trust me, saying that people take their own risks just won't cut it.

[dillwhacker]

everyone else behind a protective barrier like some kind of mesh fence that you can see through, etc.. etc.. I work in the world of health and safety at Heathrow and trust me, saying that people take their own risks just won't cut it.

Sorry, but I hate every word of that - this country needs to change back to the era of common sense and personal responsibility.
I agree with every word of our Mr. Jack Torrance (Gixxer ) - people need to wise-up and if they wish to attend an event which raises their adrenaline levels above that of watching daytime TV, they are personally responsible for their chosen position with respect to the danger associated with it.
As I said before, if you choose to chuck a bike into a corner, and when the boot scrapes you push it further, that is your choice. If there is a thrill-seeker standing on the outside of that corner - that is their choice.
I watched a lot of 3D from 70 yards away today, and TBH, I wanted to be closer. And I didn't want a safety barrier wire mesh in front of me.
Just my oinion ...
T

[buzzbird]

Well, at least now I know who to stand behind at one of Tareq's "displays," seeing as rent-an-outfit shops don't do suits of armour.
But I agree with you, H&S has gotten a bit silly lately. However, when it comes to public displays I can see the point. Unlike where cops use it to argue out of saving a drowning person as it meant getting their feet wet.

[dillwhacker]

Yep, I'll stand in front of you and enjoy it more.
That's life.
Incidentally, I can duck pretty quick...

T

[buzzbird]

Incidentally, I can duck pretty quick...T

[Gixxer]

Sorry, but I hate every word of that - this country needs to change back to the era of common sense and personal responsibility.
I agree with every word of our Mr. Jack Torrance (Gixxer ) - people need to wise-up and if they wish to attend an event which raises their adrenaline levels above that of watching daytime TV, they are personally responsible for their chosen position with respect to the danger associated with it.
As I said before, if you choose to chuck a bike into a corner, and when the boot scrapes you push it further, that is your choice. If there is a thrill-seeker standing on the outside of that corner - that is their choice.
I watched a lot of 3D from 70 yards away today, and TBH, I wanted to be closer. And I didn't want a safety barrier wire mesh in front of me.
Just my oinion ...
T

100% agree with this^^^

People need to/should accept responsibility for their own actions. Obviously, if an out of control heli escapes from the confines of the venue and injures someone who didn't willingly put themself in harms way, then that's a different story but anyone who willingly places themself in a position of danger, should accept responsibility for their decisions/actions.

This is the nanny state I was talking about. Where people are no longer considered to be sensible enough to make their own decisions.

[Gixxer]

.....Imagine if Jeb Corliss had been told after his (very bad) accident doing this stuff that he couldn't have medical care. Accidents cause other people to become involved - police, doctors, nurses etc. etc. These resources cost money - paid for by us through our taxes. The government needs to manage those funds and sometimes, regulating dangerous sports is part of this. B.A.S.E jumping is illegal in many places for this very reason.

Apologies for digging back and selecting this post but I meant to make a point earlier and forgot...

The way I see it is like this... We pay taxes/NI contributions, just as we pay for vehicle, house, heli insurance, etc... in case we ever need to call upon the resources for which we pay with our taxes. Fortunately/hopefully, most of us won't need to avail of these resources very often but occasionally, people who weren't, at that particular time, in the process of earning money for the government, will find themselves in a position where they need to avail of the resources they have been paying for. Whether this is due to a child falling from a tree or an accident with an RC heli, is immaterial. The simple fact is that we all pay into the system, in the knowledge that if it all goes pear shaped, we have something to fall back on, and if this wasn't the case, then what would be the point in any of us paying taxes to support this system?

People shouldn't be penalised for choosing to enjoy their lives, even if that choice means they are more likely to call upon the resources for which we all pay.

We live in a society, and without Googling a definition, my idea of a 'society' is a place where we look out for and look after each other, regardless of what recreational activities we choose to partake of.

[Jez N]

We live in a society, and without Googling a definition, my idea of a 'society' is a place where we look out for and look after each other, regardless of what recreational activities we choose to partake of.

I certainly don't disagree with you Gixxer. Much of what you say makes perfect sense and rules and regulations (I work for the NHS!!) irritate the crap out of me. But your view like that of the health and safety people comes across as very polarised.

as you have said in your definition of society. People/society should look out for each other. Many of these rules are simply there to do that. Even if you have everyone sign a waiver and then do away with all flight line rules. A death/maiming at an event is very bad publicity and at worst a criminal prosecution if it can be shown there was no regard for spectator safety. I don't want fences either but I understand why events have started using them.

[AndyThilo]

We live in a society, and without Googling a definition, my idea of a 'society' is a place where we look out for and look after each other, regardless of what recreational activities we choose to partake of.

I quite agree, but that also means that we are responsible for each others safety. And unfortunately, rightly or wrongly that extends now to two words, accountability and traceability. Because trust me, if someone did get killed at an event the HSE or Police or whoever would not stop until they got the person responsible, and it wouldn't just be the pilot. It would be the person who signed off the risk assessment that allowed a set of razor blades spinning at over 2000rpm to get to within a few feet of a bystander with no protection.

Have a look here : http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/event-organisers.htm

I'm just saying how it is, not that I agree with it. Unfortunately I live in a world that is like this and I have to deal with it every day as a project manager. Sorry I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I'm just saying how it is in this day and age. On a side note, I would have loved to been next to Bert doing his nose down wall at AIR with a video camera .

[KevDavies]

Ive held off reading this thread. Mainly because I was at the flyin when I about it and I didnt want to.

My heart felt condolances to Romans family, he was a pilot at the top of his game and it goes to show how close you are to disaster. No matter HOW good you are. Like others my helis scare the bejesus out of me when they are too close! Especially my 90's!! I feel lucky that ive saved 3 near crashes due to tail servo problems this weekend. But that could have gone wrong soo quickly! One day my luck will run out, but until then ill take the utmost care where possible.

[Rotorhead]

That's the point I'm trying to make... Why should a tragic accident be considered 'putting our hobby at risk'?

RC heli flying seems like some dirty little secret we have to keep quiet about, or the men in black will step in and take it away from us.

Unfortunately that is precisely what is likely to happen if we don't police ourselves, some politician will decide that for our own good we need to have more and more laws and restrictions placed upon us, just look at this case, there is one such twerp already trying it.

People die every day in other hobbies, so why should one or two isolated incidents threaten the hobby?

Ridiculous, knee-jerk reactions from clueless people are what threaten our hobby.

Never under-estimate the politicans ability to have knee-jerk reactions and ruin things.

[Rotorhead]

I think the point people are missing is that the "nanny state" isn't rushing in to regulate things, but will do when you have concerned people saying "That could've been my kid killed by someone else's disregard for safety."
What if that heli hadn't killed Roman, but had killed one of his clubmates instead? What if that had been at a club here in the UK?

Exactly, people just don't seem to understand how politicians and councilors minds work, their go to solution to anything when there is any complaint or concern is hit it with the ban stick.

Why help them out?

[Rotorhead]

100% agree with this^^^

People need to/should accept responsibility for their own actions. Obviously, if an out of control heli escapes from the confines of the venue and injures someone who didn't willingly put themself in harms way, then that's a different story but anyone who willingly places themself in a position of danger, should accept responsibility for their decisions/actions.

This is the nanny state I was talking about. Where people are no longer considered to be sensible enough to make their own decisions.

Unfortunately politicians don't think that way, you have to consider the world AS IT IS, not how you would like it to be, and the way it is is that it doesnt matter what the circumstances are, if a death results from an activity politicians will not look at the circumstances, they will just go for the ban stick under all circumstances.

They don't think like rational people, so you can't apply logic to them.