pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"  (Read 25102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« on: January 10, 2015, 14:09 »
-4
FAA Issues UAS Guidance for Law Enforcement January 8The proliferation of small, relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft (UAS) presents the Federal Aviation Administration with a challenge in identifying people who dont follow the rules of the air or who endanger the nations airspace. So, the agency is asking the law enforcement community for help.

The FAA released guidance to the law enforcement community explaining the legal framework for the agencys oversight of aviation safety in the U.S., including UAS operations. The guidance describes how UAS and model aircraft can be operated legally, and the options for legal enforcement actions against unauthorized or unsafe UAS operators. The document also discusses the law enforcement communitys vital role in deterring, detecting and investigating unsafe operations.

State and local police are often in the best position to immediately investigate unauthorized UAS operations, and as appropriate, to stop them. The document explains how first responders and others can provide invaluable assistance to the FAA by:

Identifying potential witnesses and conducting initial interviews Contacting the suspected operators of the UAS or model aircraft Viewing and recording the location of the event Collecting evidence Identifying if the UAS operation was in a sensitive location, event or activity Notifying one of the FAAs Regional Operation Centers about the operation as soon as possible The FAAs goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws, but the guidance makes clear the agencys authority to pursue legal enforcement action against persons who endanger the safety of the National Airspace System.

The guidance stresses that while the FAA exercises caution not to mix criminal law enforcement with agency administrative safety enforcements, the public is best served by coordinating and fostering mutual understanding and cooperation between governmental entities with law enforcement responsibilities


Original posting: FAA Issues UAS Guidance for Law Enforcement http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=81244

I still can't believe all the hullabaloo about model aircraft and people getting all upset about personal "Drones". These are toys and RC hobby craft and someone attached a camera to some. I mean I had a camera in an RC airplane in the 60s, we shot rockets up with cameras.

But call it a drone and suddenly it's dangerous and in the news. Now the FAA has to step in and regulate them.

STUPID!


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2015, 14:25 »
+8

I still can't believe all the hullabaloo about model aircraft and people getting all upset about personal "Drones". These are toys and RC hobby craft and someone attached a camera to some. I mean I had a camera in an RC airplane in the 60s, we shot rockets up with cameras.

But call it a drone and suddenly it's dangerous and in the news. Now the FAA has to step in and regulate them.

STUPID!
Until one of them fly through the engine of the aircraft you are landing or taking off and you die in the crash. Model RC flyers were always super well self regulated. I don't recall hearing about them in the news flying recklessly or in stupid places. Drone operators, as the very name of the thing they operate suggests, are barely drones themselves in their thought capacity.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2015, 14:50 »
-4
Sorry Zeus you are 100% wrong. The problem is news media and the internet and people calling them Drones which is scary like calling every black rifle that's semi-automatic an "assault weapon" when they are not.

People with RC planes are just as stupid as people with UAS. They fly "cross country" following in a car, flying down the highways. People flew them in county parks, on golf courses and they aren't as easy to fly, so more dangerous.

Watch this 1/4 scale plane, get clipped by a bi-plane. And what idiot stands next to his RC plane flying stunts like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMK4QQnmyk

The problem isn't that UAS are dangerous, it's the same as always, the people who misuse them are the problem. So now we all get regulated into oblivion because of a few idiots.

Same kind of scare laws and regulations that stop us from taking photos of trains and airplanes because we might be terrorists?

You want all our rights taken away, because of possibly some numb head flying a UAS near an airport. Please reconsider. Everything that applies to UAS also applies to RC planes, and helicopters. That's the way it works.

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2015, 15:04 »
+8
There is also a huge proliferation of these drones with no end in sight. You will always find exceptions to the general rule, but most RC operators are only interested in the act of flying, therefor even when crashes occur, they are in areas that have little population. Drones are interested in pictures and video so often seek out " interesting sites" which contain much higher populations. It's all about statistics Pete, nothing to do with what they are called.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2015, 16:56 »
+1
Have to agree with you, most RC people are responsible, except the last sentence. People hear drone and get all strange. It's a model helicopter, it's a RC toy aircraft, and I think the problems are being blown out of proportion.

I don't like having my rights or yours, taken away, because of someone else who's an idiot. Just doesn't make sense.

Like teenagers have more fatal accidents, speed is the cause. Some drink and drive, so we should take away the right to drive for everyone, and the right to have a beer, until they are 21? That's real deaths. Not hypothetical knee jerk, fear of what could happen.

Photo rights are being taken away, (similar fear reactions) because some people think terrorists are stalking railroads, airports or buildings. I love to laugh at this. They could use a cell phone or hidden camera, instead they have a big DSLR and a white lens and that's a hidden threat?

I really think these regulations will have a negative impact on RC people and their fun. Now the police are supposed to investigate and get witnesses, and report to the FAA. Really? They don't have more important things to do, than stop people from having some fun with a model aircraft?



There is also a huge proliferation of these drones with no end in sight. You will always find exceptions to the general rule, but most RC operators are only interested in the act of flying, therefor even when crashes occur, they are in areas that have little population. Drones are interested in pictures and video so often seek out " interesting sites" which contain much higher populations. It's all about statistics Pete, nothing to do with what they are called.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2015, 17:18 »
+1
People are concerned, with good reason, about invasion of privacy. Plus, you have people like this guy flying stuff around. He managed to kill himself with his model helicopter...he could've killed anyone else who happened to be nearby that day:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/

Lucky me, I live near a tiny airport that is one of the first to be chosen as a testing spot for real drones...the big ones. So now I get to have those things flying overhead, as well as general aviation airplanes (10x more likely to crash than a car), homebuilt experimental aircraft (even more likely to crash), and "RC toy aircraft" that buzz our neighborhood in between the real aircraft takeoffs and landings. I'd really love to take their fun away. Big time.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2015, 19:04 »
-2
Agree Shelma and also agree with Zeus when it comes to invasion of privacy or hazardous operation, near people or property.

My disagreement is with the Feds getting into regulation and calling in the police, to observe and collect information.


People are concerned, with good reason, about invasion of privacy. Plus, you have people like this guy flying stuff around. He managed to kill himself with his model helicopter...he could've killed anyone else who happened to be nearby that day:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/

Lucky me, I live near a tiny airport that is one of the first to be chosen as a testing spot for real drones...the big ones. So now I get to have those things flying overhead, as well as general aviation airplanes (10x more likely to crash than a car), homebuilt experimental aircraft (even more likely to crash), and "RC toy aircraft" that buzz our neighborhood in between the real aircraft takeoffs and landings. I'd really love to take their fun away. Big time.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2015, 19:56 »
-3
I am with Pete on this.

People  have  flying model aircraft, helicopters and boats since back on the 70's.

Oh wait BOATS!

No regulation on them?

Getting caught in props or waterpumps etc.

It is the idiot that launched and flew one at an airport! WTFWHT???????

And because of this now there are new laws for the police to try and figure out when most of them already have no idea about photography on foot much less photography in the air now.

Basic common sense applies to the photography law and rules both on foot and in the air.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Shelma1

« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2015, 19:59 »
+1
Well, the FAA has to get involved because they govern U.S. airspace. You can't have people flying drones around where they'll get in the way of flight patterns. Already in New York there have been a couple of instances of videographers flying drones too close to police helicopters. That's what they're testing near me...how to incorporate unmanned drones into the airspace. They promise the drones will just fly out to sea to record and there will be no invasion of privacy. But they'll only be a couple hundred feet over my house as they head out or come in, so I find that hard to believe.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2015, 20:45 »
-3
Well, the FAA has to get involved because they govern U.S. airspace. You can't have people flying drones around where they'll get in the way of flight patterns. Already in New York there have been a couple of instances of videographers flying drones too close to police helicopters. That's what they're testing near me...how to incorporate unmanned drones into the airspace. They promise the drones will just fly out to sea to record and there will be no invasion of privacy. But they'll only be a couple hundred feet over my house as they head out or come in, so I find that hard to believe.
The FAA only governs air space above 400 feet and for good reason.

If the FAA starts limits on anything below 400 feet then that will include ultralight planes and copter that hobbyists build and fly and I am not talking drones I am talking about manned ultralights which right now are not governed by the FAA same as drones.


Anyone flying a drone near a police copter is a F*****G IDJUT and should be arrested besides police choppers are easily above the 400ft limit so what kinda drones are they flying at those altitudes?

And even at 400 feet the drones become a spec in the sky unless you are watching through binoculars.

Here is a 1/4th scale USAF jet (drone) top speed can be no more then 200mph as per the law and always are flown below the 400 feet limit, trying to keep up with one of these from the ground takes some serious concentration and skill, just one jet cost's $60,000 and the guy who owns this has 3 of them.

Pros obey the laws and rules wile other F*****G IDJUTS don't and ruin it for those that do.


Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2015, 21:07 »
0
The drone was flying at 2,000 feet. Article also has info about FAA regulations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/two-men-arrested-after-drone-flies-near-new-york-police-helicopter.html?_r=0

« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2015, 21:53 »
0

People are flying drones in controlled airspace, which is controlled to the surface, not to just 400 feet. This is the problem, if the FAA, and the other governing bodies in other countries, don't step in and regulate and an accident happens, then they will be looked at as not having done their job. And for good reason, because they will not have been doing their job.

« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2015, 22:08 »
+1
Here's an incident close to home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/drone-seen-flying-in-path-of-landing-planes-at-vancouver-airport-1.2693601

It won't take many of these before they will outright ban them, never mind regulate them.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2015, 22:12 »
+1
And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!


« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2015, 22:19 »
0
And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!
Yes, that is the problem.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2015, 12:29 »
+3
Yes we agree at this point Zeus and Barry. I think we already have laws and regulations, and yes they need to jail or at least find a suitable stiff fine, for people who infringe on protected spaces and invade privacy with cameras on UAVs. If someone operates a balloon or kite and does the same thing, it's just as bad.

My perspective is that laws that punish everyone for what a few do, are infringing on personal freedoms and giving Big Brother just one more way to take away our rights. There's too much of that going around lately.

No one here, (I assume?) would say, ban all street photography, because of some paparazzi who are invasive and over the lines of decency?

It's really the same issue and knee jerk reaction. Laws to punish the majority of civil and law abiding members of our society, based on what some knuckle-head does. Nope I can't support that.

And it's those Idjuts that need to be arrested, but yet that is to hard apparently so the one bad apple spoils it for everyone else!
Yes, that is the problem.

« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2015, 12:29 »
+1
As cool as it would be to get one of these and start producing a ton of great aerial footage, I'd be really scared of the legal consequences if spotted flying one in a public area.  Especially metropolitan/urban areas.  In the country, not so much. 

« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2015, 15:05 »
+1
As cool as it would be to get one of these and start producing a ton of great aerial footage, I'd be really scared of the legal consequences if spotted flying one in a public area.  Especially metropolitan/urban areas.  In the country, not so much.
And that's the way I think. So much cool stuff happens where things are happening. There are drones, for lack of a better word, that have auto follow features now. So you go racing along on your ATV or bike or running down a beach and they follow the action. How easy is that?

ogm

« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2015, 06:04 »
+1
Yes, the drones are dangerous in the airplanes ways!
 
But I dont understand why FAA and other worldwide agencies governing the air space dont simply determine their operating frequency range and height of flight? This frequency could be controlled(like many others), like a shield in a quite far distance from the airports, military objects, places with many people and other important objects/places? May be it is not easy and cheap, I don't know?

Yes, the drones are only models like other air models. They are very useful in certain cases and there is no point people to be arrested or to die in air crashes because of them!


« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2015, 09:33 »
+1
Yes, the drones are dangerous in the airplanes ways!
 
But I dont understand why FAA and other worldwide agencies governing the air space dont simply determine their operating frequency range and height of flight? This frequency could be controlled(like many others), like a shield in a quite far distance from the airports, military objects, places with many people and other important objects/places? May be it is not easy and cheap, I don't know?

Yes, the drones are only models like other air models. They are very useful in certain cases and there is no point people to be arrested or to die in air crashes because of them!
Blasting an area with a specific jamming frequency is not the answer. There are many finely tuned electronic navigation components around and airport that could easily be affected.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2015, 09:38 »
-1
With stories like this, I may be moving over to the scarey side... In one way, do we really need little camera drones, watching us for news? The helicopters are invasive enough. It's getting like some sci-fi movie where little UAVs track us and watch everything.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cnn-seeks-to-fly-its-own-drones-1421108456?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_NeedToKnow

While the other side of me says, I agree with this:

"Last year, a group of media organizations, including the Associated Press, New York Times and Tribune Co., filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the FAAs legal authority to regulate drones. They complained that the FAAs overly broad policy violates the First Amendment and has already had an impermissible chilling effect on some journalists reporting."

or

"In countries where drone rules are less restrictive, journalists are already using them to gather news. Drones helped show the scope of recent protests in Thailand and Hong Kong. BBC has used the devices to do some reporting. And last year, CBS News used a drone to explore the contaminated areas around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine."

If you fly your camera and sell the footage to a news service, you may get a letter from the FAA. Article also says, to this point, no one has been fined.

As you may have guessed, I'm more interested in the news, Editorial, or photography aspects, taking images for stock for example. And not interested in people hovering over your back yard, looking into windows, flying in a crowded park, or chasing a car down the public highway for entertainment.

Already got the word from the safety team at the race track, no kites, no RC vehicles of any sort and No Drones! Good move. It's private property and there are likely to be all kinds of people and any inadvertent landing could cause injury.

Shelma1

« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2015, 09:51 »
+1
It's the injury part (and the invasion of privacy) that concerns me. It's great that drones were able to capture news events, but IMO it's just a matter of time before a news drone crashes and hurts or kills someone. In the U.S. general aviation planes crash every day. Someone is killed in one or by one a few times a week. I wish the FAA would regulate those a lot more, to be honest. I just don't want to see these things (drones) crashing into people. On the other hand, I do think they're cool and useful and fun; we just need regulations to be sure they're operated safely.

« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2015, 10:15 »
+1
Many rights contradict each other. It's usually  a matter of compromise, and establishing who should get the trump card. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can slander at will, as is often proven in court.

No one has said it yet, but my guess, is the real worry, is that drones are such an easy method of dropping carnage with.

« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2015, 10:51 »
+2
So, is anybody here actually using drones to shoot pictures or video for stock?
I believe it qualifies as a commercial activity even if the subject is just a landscape in a remote location.

Concerning invasion of privacy, I would say that Google street and satellite pictures are giving more details about my neighborhood that pictures I can shoot flying over my backyard.

« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2015, 11:30 »
0
It's the injury part (and the invasion of privacy) that concerns me. It's great that drones were able to capture news events, but IMO it's just a matter of time before a news drone crashes and hurts or kills someone. In the U.S. general aviation planes crash every day. Someone is killed in one or by one a few times a week. I wish the FAA would regulate those a lot more, to be honest. I just don't want to see these things (drones) crashing into people. On the other hand, I do think they're cool and useful and fun; we just need regulations to be sure they're operated safely.

I hadn't even thought of that.  Batteries and guidance systems can fail, and anything with a few lbs of weight could potentially be as dangerous as a falling tree branch from a high elevation.

An ex Microsoft executive and his son recently crashed his private airplane into a home and killed 3, I believe, including a few children.  My sister lives a few streets over.  I was on the phone with her at the time.  She smelled the smoke, heard all of the sirens from the rescue crews, and wondered what was going down.  That could have been her house, just as well!  One of the joys of living a few minutes away from an airport, I guess. 

There are hazards that come even with driving our cars down the road, which are all potentially death hazards to pedestrians and others on the road, even when we've done our best to maintain them.  It's probably no difference when it comes to operating UAV's and the responsibility that comes with it; it's just a new area to have to think about.  You will definitely want to be full insured and be sure your insurance covers that sort of situation...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4273 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 09:49
by disorderly
25 Replies
13326 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
2 Replies
2408 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 15:28
by nicksimages
3 Replies
992 Views
Last post January 26, 2019, 03:15
by PZF
8 Replies
534 Views
Last post May 13, 2019, 19:42
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results