By Terry Dunnon 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 “l(fā)anding”.

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.

自動(dòng)翻譯僅供參考

如何操作業(yè)余RC：幽靈的威脅 how進(jìn)入愛(ài)好RC：幽靈的威脅

像你們?cè)S多人一樣，我看了會(huì)有很大的期待DJI Phantom 2視覺(jué)+規(guī)范的視頻回顧。我仍然在飛行著原始的幻象，所以我渴望看到最新的模式所提供的能力。我和他們拍下的畫(huà)面印象很深，現(xiàn)在我覬覦四。我也同樣不以為然，但是，有一些不明智的事情，他們說(shuō)在視頻。

photo信用：Eric Cheng

相對(duì)新的遙控飛行社區(qū)，我們的許多主持人的違規(guī)行為可以原諒無(wú)知的基礎(chǔ)上的注意事項(xiàng)。這個(gè)東西太多只是不直觀。然而，作為技術(shù)的傳播者，有一個(gè)潛在的負(fù)擔(dān)，導(dǎo)致一個(gè)教訓(xùn)和適當(dāng)?shù)睦?。我?jǐn)慎地指出一個(gè)或兩個(gè)規(guī)范的東西，因?yàn)闆](méi)有幾個(gè)讀者。規(guī)范要求我批判的視頻，并使用此列作為一個(gè)教學(xué)工具，為讀者（和工作人員）。所以這里有一些教訓(xùn)，我認(rèn)為可以從看測(cè)試復(fù)習(xí)學(xué)過(guò)的，包括一些我自己的RC失言的例子。

這是所有的娛樂(lè)和游戲直到…

無(wú)論什么你特別感興趣的（S）的鋼筋混凝土，人都是有樂(lè)趣的。當(dāng)你開(kāi)始把安全和法律問(wèn)題，就像你說(shuō)的飽和脂肪在麥當(dāng)勞。人們只想獨(dú)自享受自己的RC部件和巨無(wú)霸沒(méi)有任何沉重的思想。我得到了。不幸的現(xiàn)實(shí)是，經(jīng)營(yíng)RC工具是拴在一些非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)，你必須認(rèn)識(shí)到的。

我認(rèn)為相關(guān)的問(wèn)題可以分成三大類(lèi)：安全、財(cái)產(chǎn)損失，和自由。我摸了一下對(duì)這些主題，而使用違規(guī)從測(cè)試視頻為例。許多課是不特定的多轉(zhuǎn)子可適用于任何遙控飛機(jī)。

我看著復(fù)習(xí)幾次準(zhǔn)備這篇文章，對(duì)一些事情一看改變了我的看法。我想我需要一個(gè)意見(jiàn)，所以我聯(lián)系舍曼帕特里克。帕特里克是一個(gè)創(chuàng)始人羅斯威爾試飛員和RC寫(xiě)我的同事。我從來(lái)沒(méi)有見(jiàn)過(guò)帕特里克，但我已經(jīng)讀了一些他的鋼筋混凝土相關(guān)的文章，并尊重他的專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)。我拍了一封電子郵件給帕特里克一個(gè)鏈接的評(píng)論說(shuō)：“看這，告訴我你是怎么想的?！彼囊恍┰u(píng)論插話隨著我。

安全
讓我們開(kāi)始談?wù)摫苊鈧ψ约汉退说囊恍┗痉矫?。其中一個(gè)最大的問(wèn)題是，大多數(shù)的世界認(rèn)為他們是玩具，大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為安全。第一道障礙僅僅是承認(rèn)鋼筋混凝土設(shè)備是很危險(xiǎn)的。是的，人們因鋼筋混凝土事故而死亡。更多的是定期受傷。

也許鋼筋混凝土損傷的最大原因是螺旋槳擊打，這恰好是最?lèi)毫拥淖镄形铱吹揭曨l。
也許鋼筋混凝土損傷的最大原因是螺旋槳擊打，這恰好是最嚴(yán)重的我在視頻中看到的犯罪?；氐睫k公室，將和規(guī)范談?wù)摰挠撵`的道具所帶來(lái)的良性危險(xiǎn)。也不愿意把手指放在傷害的方式，這讓我希望他們的未來(lái)。血的水泡可能是你所期望的最小傷害。在正在進(jìn)行的皮膚與螺旋槳的傳奇，螺旋槳總是贏！建模者的持續(xù)度削減從旋轉(zhuǎn)的螺旋槳。我知道兩種情況下，RC直升機(jī)有效被斬首的人（在這兩種情況下，飛行員）。我個(gè)人有了口角兩次螺旋槳。兩人都是血腥的，不愉快的事情。二次事件造成神經(jīng)損傷，歷時(shí)數(shù)月治愈。任何需要更多證據(jù)的人都應(yīng)該有一個(gè)像“鋼筋混凝土支柱受傷”、一個(gè)嘔吐袋的東西，而對(duì)于一些原因，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的電動(dòng)飛機(jī)在電動(dòng)飛機(jī)上造成了特別的威脅。首先，他們是如此的安靜，以至于他們沒(méi)有很危險(xiǎn)。內(nèi)燃機(jī)的噪聲（IC）引擎是一個(gè)不斷威脅的提醒。人們傾向于讓他們的后衛(wèi)與舒緩的嗡嗡的電動(dòng)馬達(dá)。相信我，道具不在乎什么類(lèi)型的電機(jī)是旋轉(zhuǎn)的，它削減了一樣。

the Cuisinart在廚房里旋轉(zhuǎn)一個(gè)封閉的4英寸的刀片具有高達(dá)250瓦的功率。相比之下，我的DJI Phantom使用稍微更多的權(quán)力4曝光8英寸螺旋槳旋轉(zhuǎn)。這更容易造成傷害？“電動(dòng)汽車(chē)的另一個(gè)欺騙性的方面是，他們可以從靜態(tài)到完全的力量，沒(méi)有更多的努力，而不是一個(gè)開(kāi)關(guān)，無(wú)論是故意或偶然?；孟髮?shí)際上需要協(xié)調(diào)棒的動(dòng)作來(lái)武裝油門(mén)。這是一個(gè)偉大的，但不幸的是罕見(jiàn)的先決條件。我不小心碰油門(mén)我的發(fā)射機(jī)的頸圈時(shí)拿起一架飛機(jī)。我還派了一架飛機(jī)在我的工作臺(tái)放大，當(dāng)我不經(jīng)意地把錯(cuò)誤的開(kāi)關(guān)打開(kāi)我的發(fā)射機(jī)。幸好沒(méi)有人受傷，但我確實(shí)損壞了幾架飛機(jī)。雙好的經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則如下：< /對(duì)。一旦你插入電池，把一個(gè)電動(dòng)飛機(jī)當(dāng)作支柱（即）可以隨時(shí)開(kāi)始旋轉(zhuǎn)（即保持你的身體遠(yuǎn)離支柱?。．?dāng)在模型上工作時(shí)，總要拆下支柱（或禁用電機(jī)）。同樣，在一個(gè)鋼筋混凝土車(chē)驅(qū)動(dòng)輪。

once你插上電池，總是把電動(dòng)飛機(jī)非常謹(jǐn)慎。簡(jiǎn)單的事情可以使螺旋槳（S）在不合適的時(shí)間來(lái)生活。電動(dòng)機(jī)，危險(xiǎn)沒(méi)有一次道具打你走了。
我會(huì)具體到電動(dòng)機(jī)的最后一點(diǎn)是，危險(xiǎn)并沒(méi)有消失，一旦道具打你。一個(gè)集成電路的電機(jī)通常會(huì)失速時(shí)的支柱打一個(gè)手指或腿。然而，電動(dòng)馬達(dá)只是拉多了安培。在電路被打破之前，它將嘗試著不停地旋轉(zhuǎn)……可能引起多個(gè)切割。對(duì)了，另一種常見(jiàn)的方法是使人與鋼筋混凝土飛機(jī)在一起，實(shí)際上是飛進(jìn)他們的。這是另一種情況下，危險(xiǎn)程度往往淡化或解雇是因?yàn)橥婢呦馬C汽車(chē)自然。玩具或不，力仍然等于質(zhì)量×加速，因此，鋼筋混凝土模型可以做傷害。為了避免飛到人們是避免飛越人的最好方式。

每個(gè)組織飛行領(lǐng)域?qū)⒂幸粋€(gè)既定的航線，一個(gè)虛構(gòu)的墻后面沒(méi)有模型飛機(jī)要飛。這提供了一個(gè)安全的避風(fēng)港，人們停車(chē)，準(zhǔn)備他們的模型，或觀看的行動(dòng)沒(méi)有重大威脅被一個(gè)任性的飛機(jī)。是的，交通事故仍時(shí)有發(fā)生，但航線阻擋層的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)顯著。

當(dāng)你飛在一個(gè)公共場(chǎng)所，它是由你來(lái)定義的障礙。讓我們說(shuō)你是在一個(gè)城市公園。你不能指望任何人都會(huì)注意到你的模式所帶來(lái)的危險(xiǎn)。記住，他們?cè)谙肽愕哪Ｐ妥鳛橐粋€(gè)玩具，當(dāng)然，你不會(huì)帶一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的玩具到公園。適應(yīng)形勢(shì)的負(fù)擔(dān)完全是你的，我有人送他們的狗和他們的孩子去追逐我的飛機(jī)，而我飛在公園。即使在建立和明確標(biāo)明遙控飛行領(lǐng)域，我看到無(wú)能的人開(kāi)車(chē)沿著跑道而人飛。還有一次，一組騎馬來(lái)到一個(gè)繁忙的飛行領(lǐng)域，忽視了我們的瘋狂的請(qǐng)求得到他們的馬匹離開(kāi)跑道。一張傳單不得不拋棄他的飛機(jī)，以避免撞到他們。< /對(duì)我重復(fù)：世界上的其他人是不會(huì)害怕你愚蠢的飛行玩具。讓那些人安全的從你的模型中是你的工作。< /對(duì)返回的視頻，打開(kāi)序列包括一個(gè)幻象的剪輯，直接在上面將和規(guī)范。帕特里克和我對(duì)這種情況有點(diǎn)不同。帕特里克說(shuō)，“我擔(dān)心的視頻很隨意自然會(huì)鼓勵(lì)人們?cè)诩依锟闯鋈ィ鐾瑯拥氖虑椤６艺J(rèn)為這是有點(diǎn)危險(xiǎn)，也不會(huì)引起我太多的心痛。每個(gè)人都是一個(gè)成年人，他知道什么正在發(fā)生并且已經(jīng)接受了風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。所以我個(gè)人的反應(yīng)是：“玩得開(kāi)心，但要小心，如果你受傷了，不要抱怨?！?/p>

anytime你飛過(guò)去的人或事，你可能墜毀并造成傷害。問(wèn)問(wèn)你自己是否值得去獲得它。PS -在十字路口的轎車(chē)是由一個(gè)混蛋，我的例外是當(dāng)他們飛的幽靈在一個(gè)相當(dāng)繁忙的街道。在這種情況下，人們?cè)谝粋€(gè)任性的幽靈的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)已經(jīng)不知道的危險(xiǎn)，并已同意無(wú)。當(dāng)然，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)也有點(diǎn)低。但讓我們面對(duì)它；鋼筋混凝土飛機(jī)墜毀的原因是多的原因。如果你碰巧在人群中出現(xiàn)，那對(duì)每個(gè)人都是一個(gè)非常糟糕的日子。正如舍曼先生所指出的，“多轉(zhuǎn)子必須飛好像要從天上掉下來(lái)沒(méi)有警告?！彼a(bǔ)充道，你可以提供一個(gè)暴跌四受害者的唯一理由是，“是的，但我是一個(gè)很酷的鏡頭！“< / P >財(cái)產(chǎn)damageIf你沒(méi)精神或經(jīng)濟(jì)上具備處理任何給定的飛行總的損失，也許RC飛行不是你。
我說(shuō)話時(shí)的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失，沒(méi)有任何模型你飛行的潛在危害。每次你提起，你都會(huì)接受一個(gè)潛在的危險(xiǎn)或?yàn)?zāi)難性的事故。如果你沒(méi)有精神上或財(cái)政上的裝備來(lái)處理任何給定的飛行的總損失，也許對(duì)你的飛行不適合你。去給自己買(mǎi)一個(gè)保齡球吧，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是，我要說(shuō)的是。就在去年，我不小心把我的一個(gè)模型變成了一輛汽車(chē)。我失去了我的飛機(jī)的濃度足夠長(zhǎng)的飛鏢后面的航線。我試著去救它，把它的中心打在了門(mén)上，而不是把飛機(jī)排到地面上