I don’t know what the rate of slow-down in that video is – 85 mph would be more realistic. A 200g cube of 1×1×1 inches should have a terminal velocity of around 35 m/s / 120 km/h / 70 mph.
Cobalt wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, judges tend to read and know the law.
We shall see when the day comes. Right now, there is a big court case in Berlin against two idiots who staged a car race in the middle of town, killing a pedestrian in the process. The accusation is murder, not manslaugter (which would usually be the case with traffic casualties).
NB: I have never denounced anybody for anything in my 50+ years on this planet, but there are two things for which I would denounce a fellow pilot: Walking to his aircraft drunk and sticking stuff to his airframe.
Just watched the video. The guy was an idiot for attaching it where if it came off it would hit the windscreen, him, or the vertical stabiliser. An expensive repair… I had some VS hangar rash and it came to about 8k.
Smashing the window into his face would be even better…
Cobalt wrote:
don’t know what the rate of slow-down in that video is – 85 mph would be more realistic. A 200g cube of 1×1×1 inches should have a terminal velocity of around 35 m/s / 120 km/h / 70 mph.
I assumed it tore off some part of the aircraft which added drag, as opposed to slow-mo video, but I bet you’re right. Regardless, I think concern about the remote chance of it hitting somebody on the ground is a bit ridiculous. If my life involved that level of angst about day-to-day risk, I’d probably just kill myself and get it over with.
Re 8K for some hangar rash or similar, a friend’s partner ground looped their Pitts S-1S a few months ago, dragging one wing and aileron on the ground at 80 mph, and cracking the spar. They did some other work while they had the plane torn down, different landing gear etc, but their cost to rebuild one wing, one aileron and patch the cover was about $1000. It looks perfect. I think it’s a good idea to realize that not everybody lives in, or has to live in, a world of exorbitant prices and writing huge checks… very much including people who own wood and fabric aerobatic biplanes.
Personally, I’ve spent $3K over the last few days on my back garden… The planes are a lot cheaper! 
Legal under CAA providing an LAA Inspector has examined and authorised it. (Tiger is I think now under the LAA. Approval by a Licenced Engineer is needed if under CAA.)
Speed will depend on the Go-Pro’s drag, rather than the height. The US National Park Service claims a pebble falling 100’ can kill.
Effect if it hit someone will depend on its mass, hardness, and shape of initial hit area.
what_next wrote:
We shall see when the day comes. Right now, there is a big court case in Berlin against two idiots who staged a car race in the middle of town, killing a pedestrian in the process. The accusation is murder, not manslaugter (which would usually be the case with traffic casualties).
But this is still an active case – not even here, the outcome (conviction of murder) is assured and in fact, previous incidents like this have resulted in a manslaughter conviction, no? I read about this case and it seems the parties involved are trying to set a precedent. Morally/emotionally I agree. These kinds of races, you obviously accept that people ARE going to get hurt/killed. The camera is a bit of a different ballpark, isn’t it? Until a case like this has been run through the courts, it is by no means crystal clear that it would result in a conviction for murder.
what_next wrote:
NB: I have never denounced anybody for anything in my 50+ years on this planet, but there are two things for which I would denounce a fellow pilot: Walking to his aircraft drunk and sticking stuff to his airframe.
That’s a pretty harsh statement. No need to discuss the drunk pilot – but the camera I’m curious about. There is obviously two “problems” with this – the possible (“uncertified”) change of flight characteristics and the danger of loosing the device and endangering people. Is your disapproval based on both or one of these issues? I find that if one attaches a camera in a secure way, this, again, does not compare to flying drunk. Obviously, any suction cup solutions aren’t secure and neither are duct tape solutions. However, those mounts that allow you to attach a camera to a Cessna wing strut have multiple layers of security and I don’t see how they would come off.
Realistically the chance of getting a gopro land on your head has to be much lower than the chance of getting a meteor.
Huge numbers of meteors hit the earth each year, but the number of gopros falling off annually cannot be more than say 100, surely? 
On the other hand, the number of GoPros falling off mid-Pacific by night (when everyone’s safely in bed) must be smaller than the number of GoPros falling off in the South East of England by day, whereas meteorites are relatively undiscriminating in where they fall. (Not really disagreeing, just feeling argumentative).
According to this site:
Cornell website on meteorites
They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year.
i.e. 9-40 meteorites per year falling over the UK.
Practically speaking, I’d imagine the risks to pilots are likely to be far higher than the risk to members of the public.
Peter wrote:
Huge numbers of meteors hit the earth each year, but the number of gopros falling off annually cannot be more than say 100, surely?
Very few numbers of meteors weighing as much as a GoPro actually make it to the ground each year. As 4/5 of our planet is covered by oceans and ice, only 1/5 fall on land. The populated areas make maybe 1/10 of the landmass, so only 1/50 of all meteors fall onto populated areas. On the other hand, most flying with the kind of aircraft featured in this thread takes place close to or over pouplated areas, therefore every single GoPro falling from such a plane will hit a (more or less) poulated spot.
This idiot here did his aerobatics over a beach. This one here was not very crowded, but there are a lot of beaches where the chance of a falling object actually missing a person a smaller than hitting.
what_next wrote:
I would rather call it “possible evidence in court”. If that thing falls close to a person in my part of the world it will fetch him a well deserved five years sentence for attempted murder
Not in Britain. Even car drivers who deliberately knock cyclists off on camera with plenty of evidence only get at most a slap on the wrist. It would take intent to kill to count as attempted murder.
