Re: Near Misses
 

Idiotic article by Forbes trying to garner headlines with false titles and flawed logic. A whole lot of maybes. What if a bullfrog had a glass ass?

I thought it was spectacular aerial footage.

Re: 17 year old kid gets attacked by a lady for flying a drone at the beach.
 

Merged that thread into this one. Trying to keep all of the "incidents" together.

Re: Near Misses
 

Headline: "2 drones in near-miss with NYPD chopper"

There's more. Full story at 2 drones in near-miss with NYPD chopper | New York Post

Re: Near Misses...
 

Meanwhile in Australia, a triathlete went down when she was hit on the head. Authorities have finished their investigation and may prosecute.

Drone operators involved in athlete's injury referred to Director of Public Prosecutions

Re: Near Misses...
 

Another one between full size helicopter and drone, in Florida.

Near-Collision Between Drone and Helicopter Rattles Pilots | NBC 6 South Florida

Re: Near Misses...
 

All of these are not "drones" , they are radio controlled model aircraft.

Here is what a drone is:

Re: Near Misses...
 

Language and the meaning of words is something that evolves, and the Oxford dictionary currently lists for drone:
- so according to the dictionary definition, what we're talking about are just as much "drones" as big military machines.

In common usage, I'd say the differentiation between a "model aircraft" and a "drone" has nothing to do with size, but that the latter gets used for a device that has some "function" other than simply flying about under guidance. Whether that function is monitoring an enemy hundreds of miles away and firing missiles, or simply mounting a GoPro for photography is irrelevant - they are both classed as "drones".

Re: Near Misses...
 

I wrestled with what to call this forum -- UAV, SUAV, RCMA, etc. and finally settled on "flying cameras" since ultimately that's what it's all about. But UAV made it into the sub-heading at least.

Re: Near Misses...
 

No problems Chris, "flying cameras" is as accurate, neutral and benign as it gets, well done.

As our fine language morphs, it is becoming apparent that in the minds of the public ever since the Afghan/Iraq wars, that drones are larger weaponized military aircraft. "Drones" used to mean unarmed target practice pilotless planes.

The media, by linking radio control model airplanes to weaponized "drones" instead of calling them radio control model aircraft, they are trying to sensationalize and fearmonger by using a military term.

In psy-ops, if you can frame the argument, you can usually win the battle. Now even tiny little foam electric model planes are now being called "drones" like the toy Phantom F4 that was called a "drone" by the drama queen media.


Might as well call this a drone, and since it might fly into your eye and potentially delivery a lethal amount of anthrax or radioactive polonium, it COULD be a weaponized drone:

Re: Near Misses...
 

Well, er............actually it used to (and still does) mean worker bees and they don't even fly! :-)

Dave

Re: Near Misses...
 

The use of UAVs for a range of tasks involves a wide range of sizes, depending on the operations they need to undertake. Radio control model aircraft as used by hobbyists didn't usually involve any task other than flying or displaying flying techniques or skills. The issue is that certain types of radio controlled aircraft can be used for things other than just flying and, of course, people tend to push boundaries. In low population density areas you can get away with a lot more than highly populated cities, unfortunately, some users don't seem to recognize the difference.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Very good! :)

Re: Near Misses...
 

You're too late - the military are way ahead of you! U.S. Air Force developing terrifying swarms of tiny unmanned drones that can hover, crawl and even kill targets | Mail Online And yes, they are generally referred to as "drones" - it's nothing to do with size. In popular usage, "drones" are generally taken as aerial vehicles with some autonomy of action which perform a useful task - be it target practice (as the original "Queen Bee"), photography, surveillance, or something more violent. Size is irrelevant.

In the example you give, it's got no autonomy and does nothing other than fly round - that's why it's right to call it a "radio control model plane" - not a drone.

(And in the real life military version, prime usage seems to be surveillance, but they're talking about "incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives for precision targeting capability" - not anthrax or polonium.)

Re: Near Misses...
 

Latest near miss: First UAV Near Miss with Ag Aircraft Reported in Pacific Northwest

and

Full story at NAAA eNewsletter - 07/24/2014

Re: Near Misses...
 

Firefighting near Sacramento, California
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...oothills-fire/

Cleveland near miss
Helicopter pilot reports near miss with drone over Cleveland, FAA investigating - newsnet5.com Cleveland

Near miss with passenger plane in Australia
No Cookies | Perth Now

Possible Space Needle drone strike in Seattle
Amazon employee may have crashed his drone into Seattle?s Space Needle - The Margin - MarketWatch

Re: Near Misses...
 

Yep, the idiot flying around the Sand fire in Sacramento area should get lots of "regulation" started... moron.

Anyone stupid enough to have been flying in airspace with aerial tankers and helicopters deserves what they get, IMO. People risking their lives to save people and property from an aggressive fire, and someone just HAD to get in there and get in the way to get a little "kewl yootoob" footage?? Unbelievable...

Re: Near Misses
 

This will be a big issue i believe with more and more idiots having access to these wonderful devices.

I am planning on buying one this year after i find the right one, but i will be using it for legit purposes, i hate the thought of having my family being filmed thru our windows with a drone, but it is reality, it is going to happen unfortunately.

Heck, here in most parts of Australia, i am not even allowed to take a camera (video or otherwise) onto a beach and take happy snaps or video of my family because of privacy issues, but we are allowed to shoot video or take photos in any open public space.

This is what i want to use a Quadcoptor for, travel videos and filming weddings.

Re: Near Misses
 

I don't know why this person was flying a MR in the vicinity of a fire, maybe he was looking for his dog, surveying the damage of his property or yes maybe he was making a cool Youtube video. Its not against the law as long as he wasn't inside the TFR, in this case it appears that he might have been and when they asked him to stop he did without any further incident or any charges being levied against him. I think the news did a good job of reporting this, they didn't make that big of deal about it they just reported what they heard. As far as who would do such a thing, well I did and it earned me an invitation to one of the aerial fire stations for the coverage. If you watch the beginning of this video much of it was used for national news covering the Springs fire. This was before all the hyperbola hit the rotary oscillator and no one had a problem with it. In fact they also allowed us to fly at the airport. This is probably the busiest GA airport in the US.


That was dismissed along with ALL of the FAA's cease and desist letters. The FAA does not have a very good track record so far.

It turns out that those "two guys" were shooting the property next door as part of a geological survey to build a high rise. They showed the video to the authorities who asked for it and at no time did the MR point the camera at the women's window. Did you hear that on the news?

These guys pretty much keep it in perspective.

Re: Near Misses...
 

From the reporting I heard in the Sacramento area (visiting at the time), there was a disruption of the flights of the firefighting tankers. That's enough for me to question the intelligence of the operator, even if his purposes were "legit" and he stopped when asked. I believe that that would be considered "Restricted airspace", not something a GA pilot would be flying into?

That said, used properly, there is no doubt that a MR could be used with far less risk to assist targeting of retardant drops - in fact it would seem to add a desirable asset to "fire control" at minimal expense, and if you lost one or two along the way as opposed to putting pilots at risk, it wouldn't be a big deal.

As with all things, used properly, "drones" have HUGE potential value compared to conventional aircraft, it's when the "pilots" forget that they are still "aircraft" and mix it up with the big boys without proper clearance or notice...

The problem here is the FAA is attempting to deal with and regulate noobs with little or no actual "aviation" experience, who do INCREDIBLY stupid things... they probably do quite a bit of other stupid stuff too while on the ground... it's just in this case they attract the FAA instead of the CHP or whoever!


While visiting, a relative showed me some of his friend's GoPro footage, including some that had attracted FAA attention (over the GG bridge, stunning footage! But very likely "restricted airspace" in today's climate of "homeland security"). His friend had a multiple redundant system in all respects, and as near as I could determine, took as little risk as possible with his very expensive MR. It CAN be done right, just as it can be done quite "wrong". At the moment the FAA has really failed to sort this out reasonably, and so "enforcement" and "regulation" attempts are epic fails. BUT, it's a matter of time before they come up with SOME form of enforceable structure... hopefully one that allows for intelligent and safe uses for a new technology without being overly restrictive!


I suppose it would be a little like if it suddenly became popular to race R/C cars on busy streets and sidewalks...

Re: Near Misses...
 

I'll agree with pretty well all of the above, especially:
It's wrong to just take a blanket "ban them" approach to drones - but unfortunately the irresponsibility and stupidity of some risks spoiling things for all.
But it falls into the classic risk assessment model - trying to weigh up benefits of an activity, chances of it going wrong, and consequences if it does go wrong. If I was in authority, then I'm sorry but this situation doesn't score very highly in the "benefits" section. An individual got some nice private footage .... so what?

I'm sure terrorists are only too aware of potential for their use of small drones - allowing free flight around sensitive areas can only increase their chance of "hiding in plain sight"..... and success.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Make these same arguments but replace "drones" with automobiles, guns, explosives, hazardous chemicals, radiation, knives, electricity, etc. I am sure your same point was made by many each time all of these were introduced but we forged ahead nonetheless. If we overly restricted or halted progress every time new technology came along, we would still be rubbing sticks together to stay warm.

Re: Near Misses...
 

No. The difference between all the examples you give and drones (in the context Dave mentioned) is that if you do the same basic risk assessment ("benefit"-"chance of failure"-"consequence") then in each of the examples you cite there is at least a clear potential benefit. In some of the cases a massive one. In the case of flying a drone around the GG bridge, any benefit is solely to the owner, and does it really matter if it never takes place at all?

That is certainly not to say ALL drone flying must therefore be without benefit, quite the opposite.

But if Jeff Bezos was successful and we did start to see Amazon drones criss-crossing the skies, that's not to say we should expect to see drone free-for-all.

Expect such to be tightly regulated, and expect similar for other "public benefit" drone flying, especially in sensitive areas. But away from towns etc the regulations can be much lighter, similarly the requirement to prove "public benefit".

Re: Near Misses...
 

In the case of you driving your car... anywhere... is there a greater good to society, or would you have pretty much walked or done without in 1900?

Re: Near Misses...
 

I think you have the concept of arbitrary and capricious backwards. We do not have to prove "public benefit" we are the public and yes if I can shoot video or sell MR's then I benefit, and I am the public. If you use the standard of what benefits the public automobiles would never have been built. Very few people benefited from owning a car in the early 1900's and there were more than a few coach builders and buggy whip manufacturers lobbying congress to protect their businesses and ban the automobile in much the way they are trying to ban drones. Most of the carriage builders eventually transitioned to building coach cars like Packards etc and where more prosperous then they would have been if they had successfully blocked the roll out of the automobile.

If the standard was what people thought was the public good at the time we'd still be in the stone age.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Yep, "public good" is a dangerous measuring stick to try to use (especially since it will mean different things to different people or groups)! Too much regulation and restriction already because a small minority are offended, frightened, or simply stupid...

I've said it before, if you outlaw stupidity, there will be no one left to guard and feed the inmates...




Having had numerous heli landings nearby where I live (in "first responder" scenarios, for some reason we have a lot of "ground based stupidity", requiring evac to trauma centers!), I've seen firsthand where a drone in the vicinity could have been disastrous.

One life flight heli was grounded in the middle of a major street because another FD heli coming in blew a CARDBOARD BOX into the LF rotors while landing... an average cardboard box... just debris sitting on the ground nearby a multiple fatality accident scene... it meant one injured party was delayed significantly from evac. A drone "hit" in the air might not bring down a heli, but would certainly result in grounding, based on the above... That Life Flight heli sat in the middle of a major street for HOURS... I never figured out whether they trucked it out or had a mechanic come out and certify it for flight...



The thing that is likely causing the most problem is the "cheap" drones that any idiot with a few extra bucks can buy because it looks cool... I bought a couple of those tiny R/C helis for just that reason, but they only fly indoors! Toys are OK indoors, but once you're out there potentially sharing airspace with real aircraft, there need to be some thoughtful rules.

Since "emergency" situations somewhat beg for "coverage" from the air, and are ALSO the most likely to involve other low flying aircraft, it would seem that is one area that needs some addressing. Flying around airports should probably require a "flight plan" (saw some Boeing footage from Farnsborough that was clearly a "drone" shot), or at least some sort of proper notice to alert other "pilots". Basically any "share the air" scenario requires some sensible R&Rs... but there are lots of other potential "drone" uses.

I'd expect that some form of "auto-return" function should be required if radio contact is lost. Probably some "operational ceiling" and line of sight requirements make sense... but beyond that, these are very useful "tools"... used properly they shouldn't represent a serious hazard to life, limb or property!

Re: Near Misses...
 

Political cartoon in todays news (history?) paper:

".......... yeah- especially with the drone videographer."
Milt Priggee, Editorial Cartoonist

Re: Near Misses...
 

Re: Near Misses...
 

Which is exactly why I said "That is certainly not to say ALL drone flying must therefore be without benefit, quite the opposite.

I thought I'd been quite specific to say that what I thought carried little general benefit are activities like "flying a drone around the GG bridge {for personal reasons}...." That is NOT the same as condemning all drone activities, period.

I well see that certain activities, certain uses of drones, may well be overall to the public good - be it usage by broadcasters or other video professionals, usage by emergency services, or even delivering packages for Amazon! But because of where such usage is likely to take place, such commercial usage is almost certain to require regulation, licensing and training - and proper insurance.

That needn't preclude all hobbyist usage (without expensive licensing etc) - as long as the latter doesn't take place in sensitive areas.

The problem isn't the drones - it's SOME individuals with an attitude of "I'm just going to do what I like!" that's the problem.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Here is a guy that sliced himself with a DJ Phantom II. Aren't those prop guards in the frame? He got quite a nasty cut nevertheless.
LiveLeak.com - Nasty cut from a quadcopter.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Re: Near Misses...
 

Somewhat irresponsible overflying an airport wouldn't you think?

Dave

Re: Near Misses...
 

Here's a near miss at Heathrow today
Airbus A320 pilot spots drone just 50ft away in 'catastrophic' near-miss above Heathrow | UK | News | Daily Express

Re: Near Misses...
 

A drone “fell out of the sky” (actually, hit a building and fell down) and knocked a 25 year old woman unconscious in Seattle yesterday. The drone hit her in the head. This was during the Gay Pride parade.

The drone was ’18” square’ and weighed about 2 pounds the reports said. Fortunately, her boyfriend caught her before she fell otherwise she could have been more seriously injured.

The police are trying to identify who the “pilot” was. For some reason the “pilot” ran off and didn’t claim his drone.

Re: Near Misses...
 

Interesting that the article is datelined yesterday, but the alleged incident took place back on March 15th.

Re: Near Misses...
 

This is the third time this week!

Drone Flying Too Close To Wildfire Grounds Forest Service Planes « CBS San Francisco