I dread the day when someone is injured or even killed by an out of control flying platform at an event or wedding. It is bound to happen. Mechanical failures, blocked RC communication, unskilled operators are a few of the reasons why. The ultimate tragedy would be to kill someone with a crash of one of these flying platforms.

I hope good judgement and restraint will prevail but I fear some will become more and more daring in the way they use these devices which will lead to tragedy sooner or later.

There's an FAR for that:

Code of Federal Regulations

Sec. 91.13

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A--General

Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

There are also laws against drunk driving but 30,000 people a year are killed because of a drunk driver.
The FAR are great BUT there will be people who either are not qualified to fly, don't consider that the danger might not be worth the shot or frankly are just plain stupid and someone gets hurt or worse. The FARs can not protect against stupid anymore than traffic laws can.
I wish they could but we all know better.

Some of us have have preached safety and not flying over crowds for many years now. Some won't get the message or will just ignore it and the result will be unfortunate.

However, putting things in perspective, more people are killed in auto accidents in one hour than have ever been killed in the entire history or RC aircraft. Life is intrinsically dangerous.

There's an FAR for that:

Code of Federal Regulations

Sec. 91.13

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A--General

Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Don't these regulations apply to full size, non-RC aircraft? Shooting from full-size aircraft is entirely different from shooting with RC drones. As far as RC in the U.S. goes, NO FLIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES are allowed at this time. This means that flying as a hobby is ok, but once you do something like shoot a wedding or any film project with RC aircraft, it's illegal. I've seen guys trying to circumvent this by claiming they're not charging for RC flying time, they're only charging for editing. I'm curious to see how this would stand up in court though...I don't think it would.

BTW since delivering pizzas with a drone is considered commercial purpose, it's also illegal in the U.S. lol
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/technology/innovation/dominos-pizza-drone/index.html

The most dangerous part of any helicopter are the rotor blades.

With a multi-rotor the risk is substantially reduced with a shroud. Like this:

Safeflight Copters Quadcopter Summer Fun Flying - YouTube

This still hasn't reached the market.

Don't these regulations apply to full size, non-RC aircraft? Shooting from full-size aircraft is entirely different from shooting with RC drones. As far as RC in the U.S. goes, NO FLIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES are allowed at this time. This means that flying as a hobby is ok, but once you do something like shoot a wedding or any film project with RC aircraft, it's illegal. I've seen guys trying to circumvent this by claiming they're not charging for RC flying time, they're only charging for editing. I'm curious to see how this would stand up in court though...I don't think it would.

Claiming your just charging for other production services doesn't cut it. The LA Sheriffs Department is simply going online and contacting realtors who have property videos with aerial footage to track down the RC operators, not sure how legal that is either.

If its legal to do aerial photography as a hobby but illegal if you do it commercially obviously its not a safety concern or it would be illegal either way. The politics of this is egregious.

The most dangerous part of any helicopter are the rotor blades.

With a multi-rotor the risk is substantially reduced with a shroud. Like this:

Safeflight Copters Quadcopter Summer Fun Flying - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZpGO3Ft-E&feature=player_embedded)

This still hasn't reached the market.

That looked CGI and the idea of showing a child pushing on it is a BAD idea. Lawn mowers have shrouds on them too but kids shouldn't play with them either.

I'm not sure how much safer a shroud like this is for a bystander, I think a 6-10 pound object falling from 30 feet or more is going to do more damage or cause more injury than the props. It would certainly protect beginners from injuring themselves...

That looked CGI and the idea of showing a child pushing on it is a BAD idea. Lawn mowers have shrouds on them too but kids shouldn't play with them either.

I'm not sure how much safer a shroud like this is for a bystander, I think a 6-10 pound object falling from 30 feet or more is going to do more damage or cause more injury than the props. It would certainly protect beginners from injuring themselves...

It's not CGI. It's a design that's actually been tested, but it's not yet been mass-produced. As for having a kid in close proximity, well, that wasn't me. I'm just sharing the link.

Much of the hazard of having any flying equipment near people are the rotor blades. Sure, having something fall on anyone is a bad thing. But just as bad, or worse, is having the equivalent of a flying weed whacker run into someone. And since many of the most interesting shots are with a camera in close proximity to people, this should be considered essential equipment.

I'm interested in operating a quadcopter from a small boat, as are others. And no way would I have an unshrouded quadcopter operating near me or anyone else.

So is it a good idea? Sure. Is it perfectly safe? Even a jib arm or an HMI on a stand aren't perfectly safe.

Sure beats having four sawblades slicing into your on-camera talent, isn't it?

You can't make ANYTHING 100% safe, all you can do is make it "safer". There is unfortunately NO way to make the human elelment any less random, dangerous, or in most cases of "accident"... STUPID...

While there is some danger to people on the ground depending on the design, I think the primary concern is unintended arial impacts - potentially a bit more serious if a full size aircraft/helicopter happened to ingest or impact a small UAV. In theory these small craft should not be operating in the same levels of airspace, but until they sort out how to keep 'em separated, there is the potential for trouble.

Absolutely correct Dave. One scenario would be a news event where you have news choppers at low altitude mixing it up with a swarm of UAVs all trying to scoop the same story. It's hard enough seeing stationary stuff near the ground like antennas and wires.

All RC aircraft are supposed to be 300 feet and lower. But you can find all kinds of online video examples of people busting that guideline.

Dumb.

Having been a pilot, it's sometimes hard to see other full-scale aircraft against ground clutter. UAV's would be nearly invisible.

If its legal to do aerial photography as a hobby but illegal if you do it commercially obviously its not a safety concern or it would be illegal either way. The politics of this is egregious.
The argument is that if you're doing it for commercial gain, there are incentives to fly in circumstances that a hobby flyer just wouldn't. You may be tempted to push matters "just to gain the shot". In other words, fly closer to people or buildings than a hobby flyer ever would consider safe, or fly in marginal weather conditions.

If you're doing it for a hobby, and one day find the wind is gusting quite strongly, would you risk your expensive "toy"? But what about in a commercial scenario, with a pushy client who has made it clear that he may take his work elsewhere if you disappoint him?

That argument goes both ways, meaning that if you have invested a significant amount of time and money in order to be able to deliver broadcast quality footage using expensive cameras, the last thing on earth you would want to do is put this equipment at unnecessary risk. People who build and fly this type of aircraft clearly understand this; those that don't, speculate otherwise.

The accepted MAX flying altitude for RC aircraft is 400' AGL, not 300' per FAA AC-91-57.

Not saying that it doesn't happen but news helicopters are often in close proximity to police aircraft, buildings, over crowded freeways and sporting events and its fairly rare that there are catastrophic accidents.

The argument against how flying commercially would force people to take unnecessary risk is made by bureaucrats, non-pilots and insurance actuaries. You set your clients expectations long before you ever plan the flight and then stick to the plan, if there's an environmental condition that changes the plan, well then I guess they don't get the shot. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in training and equipment that I'm not going to risk to get the shot.

I'm a helicopter, fixed wing and multirotor pilot, I don't think I could have a midair with a quadcopter if I tried. I fly all over LA and there are days that I can fly from San Diego to Camarillo and see hardly any other aircraft, its not exactly like driving on the freeway.. Oddly enough the thing I see the most are helium balloons that escape from car lots.

I don't think AP poses anywhere near the level of risk that the government would have us believe.

Prototype Quadrotor with Machine Gun! - YouTube

The facts speak otherwise. Time and again you hear of pilots pressured to act against their better judgement to fly in bad weather in order to make a delivery promised by a specific time. Given the competition for pilot slots they are often willing to take unnecessary risks in order to keep their jobs.

In the news scenario I described there are a combination of risk factors that make see and avoid difficult. The PIC of a GA aircraft may have a difficult time seeing a UAV due to its size and the UAV is remotely piloted making its pilot less capable of seeing and avoiding. I don't fly a UAV, just fixed wing, but I don't see how a UAV pilot would have the same sense of space that a PIC would have in making coordinated and accurate avoidance maneuvers in reaction to another aircraft operating along a constantly changing threat vector, e.g. a descending and turning helicopter, or how a rapid evasive maneuver might affect the stability of the UAV.

There has been some mention of probabilities of occurrence. Anyone who has done basic risk analysis knows you take both probability and potential impact into account when judging whether to mitigate risk. The potential impact of a collision with a GA aircraft over a populated area is high. Therefore it only makes sense to implement measures to reduce such risk. Right now that means restricting UAV activities. Perhaps in a couple of years it will mean UAVs are required to constantly broadcast their altitude and position.

When there are news events and police and news heli's are in close proximity,.they are in CONSTANT contact with GROUND CONTROL and the other pilots....

I don't see a UAV operator (ever thought of the effects of a "rubbernecker with a drone"?) being "connected", and that would be a minimal necessity if there were EVER to be UAV's mixing it up with full size aircraft.

I don't think these tiny choppers would even show up on radar, and visual acquisition is probably almost impossible. Combine this with the aforementioned "single angle" limited POV that the UAV operator likely would have, and avoiding a collision is problematic...

SURE there are LOTS of places and times where operating a heli for AP is of minimal risk... but as the costs drop, and more people have access (I saw a "Christmas lights" news segment with feed from a GoPro on a heli in the DARK (any nav lights on one of these??), there ARE risks that "John Q.UAV Pilot" with little or no flight "training" won't even begin to think of...

There are risks in getting out of bed in the morning... but you also can't regulate STUPID, or we wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING.... just because there's a bonehead out there somewhere whol might get hurt or hurt someone else...

David, what is the GROUND CONTROL you speak of?

As I've thought about this some more and the implied risk, I will be very surprised if FAA ever permits UAVs to fly over densely populated areas. If you've ever been in a pack of PJs trying to get a photo of significant event it would be obvious that the same behavior would occur with drones trying to angle in to get a clear shot. The risk would appear to be less with a midair between a drone and a GA aircraft and more likely between drones, resulting in someone on the ground getting hit.

Don't take any of my comments in this discussion as being anti-UAV, I think they will be very useful tools.

The facts speak otherwise. Time and again you hear of pilots pressured to act against their better judgement to fly in bad weather in order to make a delivery promised by a specific time. Given the competition for pilot slots they are often willing to take unnecessary risks in order to keep their jobs.

In the news scenario I described there are a combination of risk factors that make see and avoid difficult. The PIC of a GA aircraft may have a difficult time seeing a UAV due to its size and the UAV is remotely piloted making its pilot less capable of seeing and avoiding. I don't fly a UAV, just fixed wing, but I don't see how a UAV pilot would have the same sense of space that a PIC would have in making coordinated and accurate avoidance maneuvers in reaction to another aircraft operating along a constantly changing threat vector, e.g. a descending and turning helicopter, or how a rapid evasive maneuver might affect the stability of the UAV.

There has been some mention of probabilities of occurrence. Anyone who has done basic risk analysis knows you take both probability and potential impact into account when judging whether to mitigate risk. The potential impact of a collision with a GA aircraft over a populated area is high. Therefore it only makes sense to implement measures to reduce such risk. Right now that means restricting UAV activities. Perhaps in a couple of years it will mean UAVs are required to constantly broadcast their altitude and position.

I don't agree that the facts say otherwise. Do pilots make bad decisions, sure, but there are far more pilots making good decisions than there are bad ones whether commercial or not.

I fly in and out of VNY, one of the busiest GA airports in the US and have never come close to hitting anything, I also don't agree that the potential for a mid air collision with a UAV is that high. Most UAV's are LOS and probably rarely get above a couple of hundred feet AGL. Sure there are some FPV guys flying much higher than they should be but that's a very small percentage of UAV's.

There's way too much hysteria about this, people have been flying RC's for decades, recently they've had cameras mounted on them and more recently FPV has gained in popularity and its pretty much been a non issue.

The result of all of this speculation will be the FAA will just ban RC's altogether. Its amazing at the rate in which we are losing our civil liberties because of paranoia.

Chuck, you fly out of a controlled field. I fly out of PDK and 4A7, the former a busy controlled field and the latter an uncontrolled field. Your flying out of a controlled field where you have traffic advisories is not equivalent to an uncontrolled situation in which a mix of UAV and GA aircraft is involved. In the past RC aircraft have been flown out of small airfields in remote locations away from GA traffic and the folks flying those have respected the laws regarding their use. The current situation is different, where those operating the aircraft in a clearly commercial capacity are flying them in populated areas and are demonstrating a need for more restrictive operating rules, not less. Again, it's not just the probability of occurrence but also the impact that is taken into account in risk analysis. The aircraft are much larger on average than RC aircraft have been in the past. Although most are operated LOS, this will not be the case for commercial operators who intend to use them for operations such as pipeline patrol. Given there will be zero SOB, the tendency to take risks will increase, not decrease. Re your civil liberties, as a pilot you know full well that operating rules are in effect to facilitate your operation in a safe environment. I don't think you meant to imply that you would be perfectly OK with UAVs operating in your class D or C without being in contact with the controlling authority. Likewise I don't want someone's UAV in my airspace operating where it poses a risk to the safe operation of my aircraft.

I think I've made my case clear. If you think any comments here have been hysterical or paranoid, just wait until you see the comments in response to the NPR when it comes out in a year or two. At any rate, I don't think I have anything further to add to the discussion so you guys can have the last word.

Not saying that it doesn't happen but news helicopters are often in close proximity to police aircraft, buildings, over crowded freeways and sporting events and its fairly rare that there are catastrophic accidents.
Maybe - but in a full size helicopter, if you push the risks too much - YOU die. That's a wonderful mechanism for stopping people going too far.

With remotes it's different - the immediate consequence is writing off your equipment. Not good, but doesn't focus the mind anywhere near as much as personal death. (Yes, if the wreckage kills a bystander when it lands there may also be very nasty legal consequences later - but they may not seem as real as immediate personal accident.)

I really think Jim nails it when he says " If you've ever been in a pack of PJs trying to get a photo of significant event it would be obvious that the same behavior would occur with drones trying to angle in to get a clear shot." Being distanced from the event, and not in immediate personal danger if things go wrong, it's inevitable people will try to push their luck more. The "it'll never happen to me" syndrome......

When I did some flights over the Pu‘u O‘o vent in Hawaii in 1983, there was tremendous interest in getting photos of the new volcano by numerous organizations and individuals. There was a lot of air traffic every day, a mix of helicopter and fixed wing.

There was a procedure set up which probably still applies today (the volcano is still active after all these years). There was a common frequency used by all aircraft and a traffic pattern. Everyone called when they arrived, and announced their positions relative to the vent. They also called when they departed.

Generally, fixed wing flew higher, leaving the lower altitudes and perspectives to helicopters. It worked out very well, especially since there was a period of days in which the protocols could be developed.

For breaking news a standard procedure would have to be established among all airspace users well in advance, and implemented when needed.

But that means everyone has to be talking to each other, including UAV operators. Which also means they have to know, understand and be licensed to use aviation radios. And that might not be possible nor legal from an FCC and FAA standpoint.

Even if altitude protocols were enacted, along with standardized traffic patterns (clockwise around the site, for example), the problem is most RC UAV's don't have altimeters. And, if they do, they're not calibrated like aviation altimeters. So while a UAV operator might be earnest about maintaining a ceiling, he might not know exactly how high the UAV is at a given moment.

Other possibilities is a requirement for line-of-sight observers for each UAV and a strict see-and-avoid policy. UAV's would have the lowest priority and have to yield to all other traffic. Considering that flight durations and range is relatively short for most off-the-shelf UAV's, it would make sense to have them operate on a much more limited basis.

David, what is the GROUND CONTROL you speak of?

As I've thought about this some more and the implied risk, I will be very surprised if FAA ever permits UAVs to fly over densely populated areas. If you've ever been in a pack of PJs trying to get a photo of significant event it would be obvious that the same behavior would occur with drones trying to angle in to get a clear shot. The risk would appear to be less with a midair between a drone and a GA aircraft and more likely between drones, resulting in someone on the ground getting hit.

Don't take any of my comments in this discussion as being anti-UAV, I think they will be very useful tools.

Sorry if I used "laymans terms" - but during the frequent high speed chase coverage we get in LA, you often hear the news pilots chatter - they are in contact with SOMEONE on the ground who is co-ordinating (I would presume with radar and radio contact with all OTHER aircraft) the locations in airspace so that no two aircraft are close enough to create a disaster. It's unclear to me if a small (aka low visibility) UAV even HAS a radar signature, and I'm 110% sure the "pilot" isn't on a radio with anyone, unless it's a public safety UAV used by fire or police...

Let's for the sake of argument toss in someone like that "Russian UAV machine gun platform guy" in the previously linked video decides he wants "news footage" - he apparently isn't too concerned with destruction of his aircraft if you watch to the END... Papparazzi are not exactly known for their disgression, if you catch my drift. So now you have an aircraft, "controlled" only by an idiot whose ONLY interest is in "getting the shot", and who likely has little respect or training for the dangers to aircraft with people in them...

Sure, this is an unusual scenario, but certainly plausible and foreseeable! I'd call it lack of common sense by the "operator", but if some joker brought down a "big" aircraft in an urban setting... it would be BAD. I watched a Life Flight heli, sitting on the ground while responding to an emergency, GROUNDED because a second Fire heli blew a CARDBOARD BOX into the engine/rotors as it landed in close proximity (major multi fatality auto accident). GROUNDED, as in it sat there in the middle of a major traffic artery until mechanics could be brought in (I think they actually trailered it out eventually, but maybe they finally cleared it to fly again). All that from a simple CARDBOARD BOX!! Yes, an abundance of caution, but think about the implications of ingesting or hitting a UAV with a camera (lots of metal and hard plastic to do damage)... MAYBE not that bad, but also potentially a disaster!


I watched a video yesterday (which actually is sort of the proof that the "paranoia" is too extreme) where a restaraunt (I believe in urban London? Yo! Burger, IIRC) was delivering their orders with quadcopters controlled with what looked like ipads for control... yep,if the paranoia was believed, the headline would have been "Burgers with a side of DEATH", but apparently no one had been maimed or killed, and it was actually regarded as a unique novelty, thus "news"!


There are LOTS of potential uses for UAVs, but like anything else, this means that there might be "a few" potential MISuses. I would hope that over time regulations are sensible and allow for "common sense" uses of the tech. I'm sure we'll see LOTS of stories on both sides of the line as these "toys" become more and more common!

Dave, as far as air traffic control is concerned you have various categories of airspace (A, B, C, D, E, G) and flights are according to either visual or instrument flight rules (VFR or IFR). The radar service provided vary according to the airspace category and whether VFR or IFR flight. Under special circumstances you might have some parties coordinating operations, such as in an aerial fire control mission. There are air-air radio frequencies which may be what you are listening to since pilots need to let each other know when they are in an area where something out of the ordinary is occurring. Note that communications are via VHF radio which is line of sight (LOS), so a pilot of a UAV may not be able to communicate with a tower at a nearby airport unless the aircraft had some kind of repeater (heavy and spendy), however the pilot should be able to communicate with GA pilots in the area.

In some cases there might be restricted airspace, in which case only certain aircraft might be permitted, for example during the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill they didn't want anyone flying in the area below 3000 feet due to all the low helicopter and other traffic associated with the "cleanup". When the President comes to town they'll implement a restricted area several miles from his planned locations, which effectively becomes a "no-fly" zone.

Your description of the paparazzi was exactly what I was envisioning.

This guy has "mad" piloting skills. Watch in HD on Vimeo. Risk level would be pretty high if people were around. I doubt if this could happen in the U.S. unless on private property.

Ruined on Vimeo

Off topic, but pretty cool!
LiveLeak.com - Helicopter pilot saves kid's rc-plane (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c28_1371147952)

All RC aircraft are supposed to be 300 feet and lower.
Incorrect.

In the USA, the limits for RC is:
1. Fly line of sight only. If flying FPV, a dedicated spotter is required.
2. Max 400ft above ground
3. Stay more than 5 miles from any airport unless approved by air traffic control.
4. non-commercial only

Most countries in Europe also practice the 400ft limit, but rules varies from country to country.
(in Norway we also have a 300 meter horizontal distance limit.)

I think one thing everyone can agree on is that R/C helicopters and cameras to equip to them are only going to become less expensive and more prevalent in the hands to complete amateurs.

What I worry about more is the day I take my family to the beach and their are 50 other families trying to film their trip from RC Helicopters with GoPros. Or trying to visit the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls only to have the air space filled with these little buggers just from people who want nothing more then vacation video...

Then imagine what happens when two of these units collide and crash... Apart from the potential for serious injury and loss of equipment, what happens when people start in with He said She said of you crashed into me, you are responsible... And so on down the line. In a way I feel sorry for the first Judge who has to hear a case like this.

True "Professionals" while they may take calculated risks they will always take precautions to mitigate potential risks. Amateurs with attitude and sense of entitlement to put others at risk... These people scare the $&#* out of me.

David Schmerin

For those that can view it, this article in todays Daily Telegraph (UK) is about the rise in usage of drones for news gathering, paparazzi etc. and the need to change laws regulating use of UAVs.

The brave new world of 'drone journalism' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10129485/The-brave-new-world-of-drone-journalism.html)

[QUOTE=Dean Sensui;1799579]All RC aircraft are supposed to be 300 feet and lower.QUOTE]
Incorrect.

In the USA, the limits for RC is:
1. Fly line of sight only. If flying FPV, a dedicated spotter is required.
2. Max 400ft above ground
3. Stay more than 5 miles from any airport unless approved by air traffic control.
4. non-commercial only

Most countries in Europe also practice the 400ft limit, but rules varies from country to country.
(in Norway we also have a 300 meter horizontal distance limit.)

Here are the official rules as set by the Academy of Model Aeronautics:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

These are not official FAA rules but ones developed by that organization.

There are official FAA rules in the process of being developed but nothing official is expected for public comment until the later part of this year.

Thank you Dean.

According to this link, I see my nr 3 should be 3 miles instead of 5 miles from the airports:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf

And from what I have heard, 2015 is the year we (hopefully) will get some more specific rules from both FAA and their European counterparts.

Here, an RC plane collides with a real one. Someone could have died that day.
LiveLeak.com - Crash Of RC Plane Into Real One Sparks Dogfight Over Air Rights (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab3_1282653276)

That is a VERY misleading article at best - not a shred of substantiation for the "conflict", just yellow/sensationalistic journalism, or should I say what passes for "journalism" on the internet...

Looks like a small local airshow (biplane was trailing smoke, like it was doing stunts), and the R/C was probably also doing some demonstration flying - you can see a line of aircraft on the ground in the background... and a guy with a walkie talkie that may have been "flightline" control (epic fail, BTW).

They do this sort of demo at small local airshows (seen it many times)... but there is an element of chaos that seems to go with these smaller shows... I personally, along with a large part of the crowd, got blasted with jetwash as a acrobatic team taxied out at one such show... the following year they adjusted their tarmac clearance. At another show I watched a acrobatic R/C heli demo go bad (was filming, and suddenly the heli just vanished, pilot lost it, straight into the ground...) - the crowd cheered the "pilot" as he dragged the remains back, and no one was hurt, even if the event was expensive!

Accidents happen at airshows (even the big ones, like the juge crash at Reno a couple years ago), that looks to me like ALL that happened here. Two "demonstrations" that should NOT have been going simultaneously. Considering the size of that R/C, I'm surprised the biplane didn't go down - they should have not have been in the same airspace, but SOMEONE on the ground dropped the ball...


ANY situation where machines are potentially interacting (like cars on a street...) with other machines, or people, presents RISKS! So does getting out of bed... As I think I've already mentioned, you can't outlaw STUPID, but you can pass laws and regulations to TRY, but in the end STUPID is what it is. And accidents do happen, even with rules, regulations and laws...

This is a relatively new technology, with lots of "good" and also plenty of possible "bad" - to present an apt analogy... cameras can be used to shoot inspiring educational material, or cat videos... OK, maybe cat videos don't kill anyone, but...

For those that can view it, this article in todays Daily Telegraph (UK) is about the rise in usage of drones for news gathering, paparazzi etc. and the need to change laws regulating use of UAVs.
They changed the law in the UK a couple of years ago. Now you need to be tested & licensed if your aerial photo/video work is in any sense commercial.

Someone sent me this video. I was born and raised on the Big Island of Hawaii, and know where all these were taken. What scares me is that some of these videos were shot in commercial airspace!

1. :15 Volcano's National Park, tour helicopters fly here frequently. Video looks like it was taken higher than 400 feet.
2. :55 Corner of Mohouli and Kinoole St. This area is a final approach zone for 2 runways only a mile away from the airport.
3. 1:18 Honolii. This airspace is a final approach corridor for commercial aircraft, 3 miles from the airport.
4. 1:40 Akaka Falls. This area is congested with sightseeing helicopters. The waterfall is 400 feet high, but this video appears to be higher than that.

Only On Bigisland... on Vimeo

Now it seems terrorists might use UVAs...

Remote-Control Model Plane Attack 'Foiled' (http://news.sky.com/story/1108103/remote-control-model-plane-attack-foiled)

This kind of paranoia is why the government will ultimately ban all commercial RCAP.

Physics spoils terrorist plans to use RC's not bureaucrats. How much explosives do they think and RC aircraft can carry and how far?