Reading mode: Light Dark

Drones resumed

Go to last post
whvick said:
I do not want to take all the fun away from R/C enthusiasts, but we need to have it so that a terrorist could not blend in as an enthusiast and drop a bomb on a football crowd.
Click to expand...
Or fly a highly contended national flag into the stadium during a high risk soccer match and thus incite a riot!

No, wait, that already happened...

Regards, Mike
 
Beachcomber Joe said:
Beachcomber Joe said:
Dukhat wrote:there.

A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.
Click to expand...
True, but drones, unlike guns, aren't in the hands of very many people. Banning them now would make them harder to obtain. Plus if they are completely banned, you could assume that any drone you see airborne is flown with criminal intent. I think that is an overreaction to the issue.

Frankly, I don't take issue with the current US FAA rules for hobbyists, i.e., follow the AMA rules. Those rules should be enforced and carry significant penalties. I also applaud the NPS for banning them in the national parks. Unfortunately it took a number of injuries before they made that decision. I would like to see the FAA get its act together on commercial use.
Click to expand...
Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.
 
CharlesB58 said:
The interviewer asked why he didn't take photos that would probably have earned him a Pulitzer Prize nomination at that time. He replied that sometimes, the people are more important than the photo.
Click to expand...
Kudos to the man for being able to look beyond his immediate wants!

Regards, Mike
 
Carey Brown said:
Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.
Click to expand...
I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.
 
Beachcomber Joe said:
Carey Brown said:
Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.
Click to expand...
I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.

In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.
 
alexisgreat said:
All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.
Click to expand...
To be clear, flight plans are optional and not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and only required for IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).

I own and fly a helicopter; outside of congested areas, I generally fly between 500-1000ft AGL. Drones should not fly above 500ft without authorisation and a transponder. A 747 may be able to ingest a small drone into an engine and be OK, but a drone hitting the tail rotor of the average helicopter could kill everyone on board. I've often flown over groups flying model aircraft and this can be OK if they understand the altitude limitations/rules.
 
PhotoSenpai said:
alexisgreat said:
All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.
Click to expand...
To be clear, flight plans are optional and not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and only required for IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).

I own and fly a helicopter; outside of congested areas, I generally fly between 500-1000ft AGL. Drones should not fly above 500ft without authorisation and a transponder.
Click to expand...
No, the rule is 400 feet, and it's just a guideline except within 5 miles of an airport. I've flown at 3,500 feet before though I don't recommend it (even a big plane is a dot at that altitude). High start launches put the glider at about 500 feet.
PhotoSenpai said:
A 747 may be able to ingest a small drone into an engine and be OK, but a drone hitting the tail rotor of the average helicopter could kill everyone on board.
Click to expand...
So could a bird. See and avoid is the way to go. Birds don't really do that effectively.
PhotoSenpai said:
I've often flown over groups flying model aircraft and this can be OK if they understand the altitude limitations/rules.
Click to expand...
R/C aircraft should not be intentionally flown in proximity to full-scale aircraft, ever. Whenever we have an airshow that's mixed models and full-scale, we entirely ground one set while the other is flying.
 
Lee Jay said:
Beachcomber Joe said:
Carey Brown said:
Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.
Click to expand...
I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.
Click to expand...
It doesn't agree with your world view so they must be lying? I would think that an injury would need to be visible to be reported. The rangers have no reason to fabricate such a story. Considering the probable amount of paperwork, I would think that the rangers would prefer such incidents not to be reported.
Lee Jay said:
In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.
Click to expand...
The first page of a Google search will bring up several verifiable fatalities in the last year alone. The R/C community is a very responsible group yet they have fatalities. Judging by their YouTube videos as well as the comments they make in these forums, the typical drone flyer is somewhat less responsible.
 
Not yet.
 
Beachcomber Joe said:
Lee Jay said:
Beachcomber Joe said:
Carey Brown said:
Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.
Click to expand...
I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.
Click to expand...
It doesn't agree with your world view so they must be lying? I would think that an injury would need to be visible to be reported. The rangers have no reason to fabricate such a story. Considering the probable amount of paperwork, I would think that the rangers would prefer such incidents not to be reported.
Click to expand...
Not the rangers, the visitors reporting it to them.
Beachcomber Joe said:
Beachcomber Joe said:
In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.
Click to expand...
The first page of a Google search will bring up several verifiable fatalities in the last year alone.
Click to expand...
I know of two, ever, and neither was a bystander.
 
Dukhat said:
whvick said:
Lee Jay said:
alexisgreat said:
Anyway, I dont think just anyone being able to fly a drone is a "constitutional right" and it looks like we might have some steep legislation on the way.
Click to expand...
The law says we can, if we follow the rules (FAA Modernization Act of 2012).
Dukhat said:
All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.
Click to expand...
That's entirely stupid. How about having every bird do the same thing?
Dukhat said:
The reason being at our airports there have been a lot of cases of "close calls" where a collision almost occurred between a drone and a passenger aircraft.
Click to expand...
And a lot more far-less than close calls with birds.
Dukhat said:
This was on the news tonight but of course the other thread was full so I could not put it there.
Click to expand...
Oh..if it's on the news, it has to be true.
Dukhat said:
And to whomever made the comment about passenger aircraft.....lol what? I was specifically referring to unmanned aircraft that present both a safety AND privacy concern.....
Click to expand...
Actually, the vast majority present neither one.

The fact of the matter is, R/C aircraft are just about the lowest hazard to air travel there is. Birds are around 10,000 times more dangerous than R/C aircraft, and there's very little you can do about it. And even so, the numbers one, two and three causes of hull losses and fatalities of full-scale aircraft are still human error.

R/C aircraft have been flying uncontrolled in the national airspace for 70 years. Can you guess how many hull losses and fatalities this has caused over that period?

--
Lee Jay
Click to expand...
There has been a big change in R/C and drones in the last few years. As technology changes the laws need to change to protect the public. TV shows are following the technology. Like I said somewhere there have been two recent shows about how drones were used by terrorists.

I do not want to take all the fun away from R/C enthusiasts, but we need to have it so that a terrorist could not blend in as an enthusiast and drop a bomb on a football crowd.

whvick
Click to expand...
A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.
Click to expand...
Gun control works : we have strong gun control here in the UK and don't have the problems with guns that are evident in places with widespread gun ownership ( legal and illegal ) elsewhere in the world . -- With kind regards Derek.
 
Dukhat said:
nzmacro said:
Lee Jay said:
nzmacro said:
Lee Jay said:
nzmacro said:
I'm just hoping a few of them fly over some of the areas here in duck shooting season. Saves them scaring off the birds at the estuary I like to take photos at. In fact, I might apply for a shot gun license here.

Danny.
Click to expand...
Would you be okay with people that don't like pictures being taken to shoot your camera equipment?
Click to expand...
The camera equipment doesn't harm the subjects.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.

R/C aircraft don't harm birds.
Dukhat said:
Win to the bird this time ;-)
Click to expand...
See?
Dukhat said:

How much damage can be done though in the wrong areas with endangered species or protected animals, birds, etc.
Click to expand...
Not as much as is done by people. Maybe we should shoot all of them.
Dukhat said:
Natural instinct for nesting birds is to protect the area, lets not invade that space, unless of course you are all for it.
Click to expand...
Nope...now I'm sure we should shoot all the people.

--
Lee Jay
Click to expand...
Ahh, you are right I didn't answer the question.....

"Would you be okay with people that don't like pictures being taken to shoot your camera equipment?"

In my cases yes I would, but preferably not with me standing behind it :-) In some countries you would be just asking for it.

As for drones, blocking the frequencies could well be an option in certain areas.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, that would be the epitome of intelligence, wouldn't it? Block the operator from being able to control his aircraft, thereby ensuring it will crash, possibly hurting someone?

Did you take your stupid pill this morning or are you a genetic idiot?
Click to expand...
Clearly , he meant that by blocking frequencies in certain areas it would be impossible to fly the things in those areas in the first place . -- With kind regards Derek.
 
Pontoneer said:
Gun control works : we have strong gun control here in the UK and don't have the problems with guns that are evident in places with widespread gun ownership ( legal and illegal ) elsewhere in the world . -- With kind regards Derek.
Click to expand...
It would work in the US about as well as prohibition did. Worse, probably.
 
Beachcomber Joe said:
Beachcomber Joe said:
Dukhat wrote:there.

A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.
Click to expand...
True, but drones, unlike guns, aren't in the hands of very many people. Banning them now would make them harder to obtain. Plus if they are completely banned, you could assume that any drone you see airborne is flown with criminal intent. I think that is an overreaction to the issue.

Frankly, I don't take issue with the current US FAA rules for hobbyists, i.e., follow the AMA rules. Those rules should be enforced and carry significant penalties. I also applaud the NPS for banning them in the national parks. Unfortunately it took a number of injuries before they made that decision. I would like to see the FAA get its act together on commercial use.
Click to expand...
Depends where you look ; here in the UK , there are probably more people flying RC models and camera drones ( the public probably don't differentiate between the two ) than shooting guns . -- With kind regards Derek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The UAP drones will lead to ban on all foreign drones
Replies
3
Views
6K
kayaker353
K
mreynolds767
Restricted access frustrations
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
mreynolds767
mreynolds767
vyoufinder
Looks like I'm going to find out if interrupting a pilot on the ground is a felony
Replies
8
Views
3K
Skymaster Scott
S
A
Boundary Bay Airshow
Replies
3
Views
539
Lensmate
Lensmate
lokatz
G9II vs OM-1 compared for bird shooting - Part II
2 3
Replies
57
Views
39K
Bushie1951
B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top