Drones Vs Eagles

[Bob Hart]

There's a whole slew of bad possibilities in training birds to go after drones.


There is the obvious one of birds training other birds, crows and magpies especially. These may go on to hunt drones indiscriminately for their own sport.

If there is a doubt that the crowd below may endangered by a falling drone, there remains no doubt after the bird has disabled it.

The training may de-condition large birds from their normal reflex of folding and dropping to dodge real aircraft.

Unless the drones have shrouded props, the birds are at very real risk of harm or death. Birds do not have a great deal of structural integrity between the head and body.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

Okay, I have been flying RC aircraft for 30 years now. This assault on the hobby is getting ridiculous. The Academy of Model Aeronautics is an organization which self regulates hobbyists ........... On the flip side, if I am flying mine in the park minding my own business and someones tries to shoot it down I will respond with equal measure. They have no right, and should expect to be confronted.

Greg - if you're flying your drone in the park and minding your own business, I doubt you have anything to fear. This is not about persecuting a sensible hobbyist. The problem is that unlike with RC aircraft in the past, drones are being operated by far more people than just responsible hobbyists, and those range from the downright stupid to the criminal - and it's going to get worse. (Just do a search for "drugs" with "drones".) And that's before we even think about possible criminal uses in the future....

That's what this story is about - not people such as yourself flying well away from other people. Not shooting down drones at random - but dealing with drones that are being used criminally or causing a potential danger.

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

I saw this crap coming months ago. Every opportunity I had I posted comments about not creating unnecessary laws that further restrict out freedoms. That is oppression after all...

A few months ago I was in a town square when a drone came into view, and my first reaction was just interest. Then it crashed into the clock tower, seemingly after going out of control, and fell very hard to ground about 4 feet behind a girl. If it had happened in the other (more crowded) part of the square, it's pretty certain someone would have been seriously injured or killed. I'd heard drone mishap stories - but when you see something like that right in front of you.....

So what is "freedom" and what is "oppression"? I have no problem with you or anyone else operating a drone well away from crowded areas. But in a crowded area, what about the freedom of those below, to not be at unnecessary risk?

What has changed is that in the past people flew RC aircraft for the joy of just that, let alone the enjoyment of construction. Now people fly drones because of what they can "do" (normally filming and photography). So they look for interesting places to film with them, which often tend to have people nearby, and that's how the problems start.......

If the risk was only to the operator, no problem, I don't see it any different to someone indulging in a risky sport. But it's not. The risk is to others. You may be responsible, Greg, but it has to be realised that an increasing number of people who are flying drones aren't.

[Mark Williams]

David, well stated.

[John Nantz]

While we can’t print all drone accidents, this just happened today (February 8). A few bits and pieces from the BBC web site. It sure does leave one wondering:

A drone hit the Empire State building’s 40th floor and then fell on to a ledge five levels lower.

It’s very lucky for him that it landed on a ledge and didn’t continue to the sidewalk or street below. The ground level next to the Empire State Building is probably pretty busy.

Operator’s excuses (so far):

#1: “The tweet, from a Twitter account in his name, also blames a year-old news article for its misleading information.” Way to go, blame someone else for your accident!

#2: ”All I wanted was to shoot five seconds of video to promote a non-profit" Oh, so it was for a non-profit? Well, then, maybe it’s alright then.

#3: ”I asked a cop 20 minutes before I did it. He said it was fine. Hopefully he got it in writing and signed.

#4: he’s likely working on this one.

For Bob: The hobbyists at the Bremerton National Airport across from Seattle use the abandoned cross-wind runway to fly their planes. A number of the operators are pilots and retired pilots so they know the precautions. Also, it’s probably more difficult to fly a plane with ailerons, an elevator, and a rudder than it is a drone.

[Bill Sherren]

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

Hey Colin, they're obviously not steam enthusiasts.

Mike, Greg, the noise of that drone completely destroyed the sound of that wonderful old steam locomotive. That's one problem and also by being in shot, it has ruined the nostalgia trip in two ways, whether intentionally or not!

Dave

That's the problem with drone flying. I enjoy flying my Phantom in safe wide open countryside areas. But agree the "angry bees" sound could certainly annoy passers-by enjoying a quiet day out! I tend to fly only about once or twice a month and with 3 batteries that is about 30 mins a time. My one consolation is that I find dog owners often even more intrusive with their animals often running amok and barking insanely! And that's when I am not flying! If I see any dogs the Phantom stays on the ground until the coast is clear. Or well away if any appear when I am flying.

[Jason Lowe]

Originally Posted by Mike Watson

Sorry, I'm with Greg.

Unintentionally bagging someone else's shot happens all the time. Intentionally bagging someone's shot happens from time-to-time, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the drone. If it was unintentional, it was unintentional whether it was a drone, a professional, or a passerby with a point-and-shoot. If it was intentional, you're a jerk whether you were flying a drone or had the camera on a tripod.

If this was a photo run-by where paying customers on an excursion had their shot ruined by a buzzing drone, it's a problem. But if this was just caught on the fly (pun intended) from the side of the road, it's a shame, but there's little that can be done.

[Greg Allen]

I don't condone flying over people that's a bad idea... (common sense) People that do that should probably get a hefty fine. That would discourage others from not thinking before the act. Freedom is allowing people to do what they want provided that they are't harming anyone else or putting them in direct danger or oppressing them. When you create an arbitrary law because someone is doing something you don't like you are oppressing them. If you truly want to be free then you have to let them be. You don't have to like what they are doing but you have to accept it. People need to get over themselves. Seriously.

To many people these days are scared of their own shadow and armchair quarter-back everything. "what if this, what if that," (this is lack of common sense) "he said this, she said that." I'm offended. This is where oppressing others begins.


That drone pilot in that video might have been capturing video for is own work and the guy standing there shooting the train passing by ruined his shot. It goes both ways. It's only problem based on your perception. Your perception is your reality after all. Not to say that it might be ignorant of other factors.

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen;1908963ba

That drone pilot in that video might have been capturing video for is own work and the guy standing there shooting the train passing by ruined his shot.

While that may be true, the big difference is that the guy shooting the train from the ground was static and could have been avoided, the drone flew into the ground guy's shot and could not be avoided, while the noise of the drone could not be avoided for a good while before it came into shot.

So which one is the bigger nuisance to the other?

Dave

[Greg Allen]

Therein lies the problem, perception bias. No matter whom or what got in his shot it would be considered a nuisance to the videographer. It could have been me and my wife walking with our dog... A few issues. First, you are assuming that the quad copter pilot intentionally flew into that guys video with malicious intent on ruining his shot. Highly doubtful. Second, assuming this is public property they both have EQUAL right to be there and engage in their own personal activities. Third, the guy was flying in an non-populated area and now your wanting to eliminate that as well? Lastly, the guy shooting the video can easily go over and mention that he is trying to shoot some video footage with audio and if he could refrain from flying while he gets the shot. I am sure the pilot wouldn't mind. People are kind when treated kindly.

Cheers,
Greg

[Dave Baker]

First, you are assuming that the quad copter pilot intentionally flew into that guys video with malicious intent on ruining his shot

No Greg, you are the one making the assumption, assuming that you know what is in my mind and are putting words into my mouth.

I couldn't care less whether he flew into shot or brought his noisy toy into microphone range intentionally or not. The point is, certain activities are pretty antisocial and those that undertake them carry them out without caring how much or how badly they affect others around them. It doesn't matter whether the activity could allow a drone to crash into a crowd and possibly seriously hurt someone, or whether it destroys the peace and quiet of the countryside, it still ingnores the sensibilities of others.

That's it, rant over, I shall say no more on this subject.

Dave

[Greg Allen]

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

The point is, certain activities are pretty antisocial

Perception bias! What is anti social to you may not be to others.

[Mike Watson]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

Perception bias! What is anti social to you may not be to others.

This. Hiking into a snowy field to wait for a train to go by to take video of it seems pretty antisocial to me. It does not seem any more or less antisocial than hiking into a snowy field to wait for a train to go by to launch your quadcopter and take video of it from 20 feet in the air.

Also, I concur with the idea that when the quadcopter guy got home and looked at the footage, saw the guy with the tripod standing in that snowy field ruining his shot, he probably thought "I can't believe that a-hole with the tripod ruined my shot!", much like the tripod guy though about the quadcopter.

Win some, lose some. Don't over-legislate.

[Jim Andrada]

Damn! Some Anti-Social @@@@@ just scooped me on Ebay and got that C100 that had only been used once by a 90 year old lady to take a video of her cat for $50 before I could push the button. Some people are just awful, right? Let's legislate against them!

It's a less than perfect world out there some days.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

I don't condone flying over people that's a bad idea... (common sense) People that do that should probably get a hefty fine. That would discourage others from not thinking before the act. Freedom is allowing people to do what they want provided that they are't harming anyone else or putting them in direct danger or oppressing them.

But isn't "harming anyone else or putting them in direct danger or oppressing them" EXACTLY what we are talking about here?

Mercifully, the number of injuries because of drones has (so far) been relatively small. But it's early days yet, and if the number rises it can only be a matter of time. So doesn't it make sense to try to put (sensible) legislation in place now to limit the problem in the future?

I can only bring up again the incident I mentioned earlier, about seeing a largish drone crash a few feet behind a girl. Was that not a direct case of someone "putting another in direct danger"? Oppressing them, as you may say?

And that is just an incident I witnessed. There are many others reported, and regarding those involving other aircraft the consequences could be far more severe than death or injury to a single person, as may have been the case in my example. I'm all for freedom in principle, and likewise letting people do what they want, but unfortunately there are far too many people with drones who adopt a "never happen to me" attitude, and think other people's safety is less important than their own wishes.

Originally Posted by Greg Allen

When you create an arbitrary law because someone is doing something you don't like you are oppressing them. If you truly want to be free then you have to let them be. You don't have to like what they are doing but you have to accept it.

Who is talking about an "arbitrary" law? This thread started with a report of police forces experimenting with one idea about physically stopping drones which are seen as posing a threat of danger (either through stupidity or malice) or being used for criminal purposes. I'm not sure birds of prey are the answer for all sorts of reasons, but I can't argue with the need for the police etc to have a viable method of dealing with drones they perceive as a threat.

As far as the steam train incident goes, then whilst I may have sympathy with the fixed cameraman, then I don't think there is any serious call for any law to stop the operation in those sort of circumstances? It's an example of causing annoyance, but no danger to third parties or criminal intent?

But flying over a crowded town square, or near the Empire State building, or near an active airport, or using a drone to carry contraband into a prison - surely you can't be saying people should be "free" to do that sort of thing? That the police may not like it, but should just accept it!?! Because that is what is really at the heart of this thread - not a single drone ruining the audio for another cameraman. (Possibly somewhat selfishly, but unlikely to be operating illegally or dangerously.)

[Mike Watson]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I can only bring up again the incident I mentioned earlier, about seeing a largish drone crash a few feet behind a girl. Was that not a direct case of someone "putting another in direct danger"? Oppressing them, as you may say?

And that is just an incident I witnessed. There are many others reported, and regarding those involving other aircraft the consequences could be far more severe than death or injury to a single person, as may have been the case in my example. I'm all for freedom in principle, and likewise letting people do what they want, but unfortunately there are far too many people with drones who adopt a "never happen to me" attitude, and think other people's safety is less important than their own wishes.

I'm curious to know if you want to outlaw any activity that could potentially cause harm, or just this one?

I also shoot video on the ground. One time, I saw a tripod that hadn't had one leg 100% tightened slowly list until it fell over just a few feet from some people. This camera/tripod combo weighed several times what a quadcopter drone weighs. Because of this, I assume you are even more staunchly against terrestrial video? Also, against the driving of vehicles, the washing of high-rise windows, the raising of a trash dumpster to empty it, any road work in which someone might be injured... basically anything, yes?