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.