MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: UAS and Model Aircraft - AKA "Drones"  (Read 25263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2015, 19:05 »
0
Are you within 5 miles of an airport or military airport? If so, flying drones there at any height is illegal, as far as I know. Unless they're testing them at the airport, like they will be at mine. Then it's just hunky dory to have them skimming your rooftop and treetops.
No I am only in a flight path for their training and a direct line to get over the water so they can hit the afterburner and exceed the sound barrier legally.

Besides they are not allowed to fly below 400 feet in civilian airspace but they do quite often.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 19:07 by ruxpriencdiam »


Shelma1

« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2015, 19:46 »
0
They're allowed to fly below 10,000 feet. If you're in a military flight path I doubt you're allowed to fly drones. We have a public use airport, MOA and Coast Guard station around here. So we get Coast Guard choppers, military fighter jets and general aviation aircraft. The military pilots have managed to cause a forest fire that burned down dozens of homes and strafed my niece and nephew's grammar school by mistake. And now we'll get drone testing too. Fun times.

« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2015, 02:47 »
+1
Ha...what are they going to do when we all have flying cars and jet packs?

« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2015, 21:13 »
+1
Here's a good article and show on drone use.

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/the-age-of-the-drone

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2015, 04:35 »
-1
drones will be soon banned everywhere because people are abusing and misusing these new "toys" ... sadly every time a new technology pops up there's always a bunch of idiots ruining it for everyone :(

at best, only operators carrying a civil aviation licence or whatever will be allowed to buy and operate drones.

i think this new tech is too much underestimated, you can easily kill somebody misusing a drone "just for fun" ...
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.


« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2015, 15:35 »
+2
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.

That's easy for people to say when they're not small video producers like myself that can't afford to get a pilot's license for something no more dangerous than the thousands of gas-powered radio control airplanes already out there.

The beauty of the DJI Phantom, etc. is that their low cost allows producers like me to provide a great service to our clients at an affordable rate.

« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2015, 19:03 »
0
i warmly welcome very strict laws against as-s holes running drones.

That's easy for people to say when they're not small video producers like myself that can't afford to get a pilot's license for something no more dangerous than the thousands of gas-powered radio control airplanes already out there.

The beauty of the DJI Phantom, etc. is that their low cost allows producers like me to provide a great service to our clients at an affordable rate.

Elvinstar, you are so right.

At the same time the FAA came out with prohibitive restrictions on drone use by American citizens, the Obama administration announced that it will sell weaponized drones to foreign countries. We lose our freedoms, and foreigners are empowered to kill people using technologies paid for by us taxpayers. And some people think that is right.  :'(

Uncle Pete

« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2015, 10:33 »
+2
We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some technology. I pointed out to a friend that we have had model airplanes, radio controlled, with cameras, for fifty years. He started shouting, "but they aren't armed! People will put weapons in these drones..."

They are model airplanes and helicopters. They have nice cameras, and limited lift capabilities. Taking photos from the air, would be fun, but I can't afford a plane (see above) heck I can't even afford a "Drone".

People are going overboard with the dangers and getting all excited about a toy. UAVs are not drones.

Now if citizen had armed drones, yes I'd get quite upset. Also as people have pointed out back on other pages, if I had them buzzing my back yard, or invading my privacy, I'd be tempted to shoot one down. (probably illegal on my part) The laws say you can't fly within five miles of a commercial airport. The electronics is being programmed to prevent the UAVs from flying in restricted airspace.

Like anything else in this world, most people are responsible and the news will stir up interest using the exceptions. This is the same with "drones" and sensationalism about incidents. Come on , they have been around for 50 years!

I'll add this: Automobiles were so alarming to livestock that Vermont passed a state law requiring a person to walk in front of a car carrying a red warning flag, and some rural counties banned them altogether.

Pennsylvania 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified. (it was fortunately vetoed by the Governor)

Technology and toys. These things are hardly able to lift themselves and a GoPro. That's a personal UAV.

Now if someone is asking about something that can fly a DSLR, which starts to get large and powerful, I'd say there need to be regulations on who can fly them and where.

But lets not lump everything that flies a little camera into the same class as an armed drone that carries a rocket!

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2015, 23:11 »
+2
We lose our freedoms, and foreigners are empowered to kill people using technologies paid for by us taxpayers. And some people think that is right.  :'(

flying your drone in my garden or spying on private property is not your "freedom" and thanks god the civil aviation authorities are now pushing for new draconian anti-drone laws.

as for technology, what makes you think it's been made or designed in the USA ?? all the first prototypes (including toys) and all the early working models of what is now known as Helicopter were built in Europe.

and DJI itself is based in Shenzhen, China.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2015, 23:17 »
0
We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to some technology. I pointed out to a friend that we have had model airplanes, radio controlled, with cameras, for fifty years. He started shouting, "but they aren't armed! People will put weapons in these drones..."

YES they will ... because this tech is not cumbersome as the old radio-controlled cr-ap sold in toy stores in the past, drones work out of the box, they're a turn-key solution unlike the old kits requiring hacks and a technical background.

the octo-copters on sale now (3-4000$) can pull up as much as 5-6kg of load and they've 15-30 minutes of battery ... that's way more than enough to carry small bombs or remote-controlled weapons.

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2015, 12:12 »
0
My understanding is that FAA is trying to regulate commercial use of drones.
It means that I will be still able to fly drones (responsibly or not) for fun and shoot pictures,
but not sell them ...

Is flying with weapons and bombs considered a commercial activity? No license required here ...

« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2015, 19:22 »
+2
It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2015, 20:41 »
+2
That's what I was trying to say before. Also I did write that the little ones will barely carry a GoPro or extra battery pack. The big expensive ones are a different problem.

Commercial use, units with heavy lifting or larger mass themselves, should be regulated. Hobby use, even one of us shooting with a sport camera, is just having some fun.

The commercial label just confuses things terribly.

Lets say "Professional Photography" and now I want people to explain who's a professional or not. Then go back to "Commercial" and tell me, someone making 28 cents is a professional doing commercial work?

Let me straighten out what I'm writing. The size of the craft and the weight, is more important than labeling someone who makes a photo for sale as commercial. That's not the same as a TV camera flying over some news scene. Defining the USE, doesn't change the person at the controls, or make them more responsible or less responsible.

Don't prejudge.




It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 20:51 by Uncle Pete »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2015, 10:33 »
0
Yeah big difference between Drones which are primarily Military armed 1/2 scale unmanned aircraft compared to the general public's tiny little model aircraft!

That's what I was trying to say before. Also I did write that the little ones will barely carry a GoPro or extra battery pack. The big expensive ones are a different problem.

Commercial use, units with heavy lifting or larger mass themselves, should be regulated. Hobby use, even one of us shooting with a sport camera, is just having some fun.

The commercial label just confuses things terribly.

Lets say "Professional Photography" and now I want people to explain who's a professional or not. Then go back to "Commercial" and tell me, someone making 28 cents is a professional doing commercial work?

Let me straighten out what I'm writing. The size of the craft and the weight, is more important than labeling someone who makes a photo for sale as commercial. That's not the same as a TV camera flying over some news scene. Defining the USE, doesn't change the person at the controls, or make them more responsible or less responsible.

Don't prejudge.




It seems to me that people using UAVs commercially (like myself) are more likely to be responsible and to have insurance than hobbyists. It feels like the FAA is focusing the regulation in the wrong direction.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2015, 12:00 »
0
And who is gonna regulate the Speeders that Honda is making?

Will it be DMV or the FAA?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun

« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2015, 13:22 »
0


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun

« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2015, 22:51 »
0
Here's a cheap way to get a decent (from the reviews that I've read) UAV:

http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopters/pp_113550.html

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2015, 11:39 »
0
Interesting, estimated 15 minutes flight (is that lifetime for the money? :) ) Lifting capacity 12oz / 350gms
Hero in a case, 5.5 OZ, I wonder how that effects the flight time, since more weight takes more energy to lift and keep in the air.

I'm still worried that the UAV will fly up, lose radio contact and Bye Bye toy RC Quadracopter and GoPro.  :-\

I ran RC boats, hydros, tunnel hulls and mono-hulls. Kept one sailboat and one outboard. Even those managed to go off on their own, but in a pond or lake, it's not a total loss. (usually)

Here's a cheap way to get a decent (from the reviews that I've read) UAV:

http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopters/pp_113550.html

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2015, 15:51 »
0

Uncle Pete

« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2015, 16:47 »
0
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/3/12/faa_tells_lutz_man_t.html

LUTZ --

Flying your drone could get you in a lot of trouble with the Federal Aviation Administration, as a Lutz man has found out firsthand.

Jayson Hanes likes fly his drone above and around different landmarks in the Bay area, then post the video on his YouTube page.

"I'm just trying to get that shot," he said. "You know, like you would with any camera, whether it be a cell phone or a full size DSLR."

His videos get a lot of hits, but now the FAA is stepping in and telling him to stop posting videos.

Hanes got a letter from the federal agency stating that he is considered a commercial operator because he has the potential to collect money from YouTube based on the number of people who click on his videos.

I havent done anything commercial, Hanes said.

But FAA officials beg to differ. They say the mere fact that there are ads on YouTube means he has the opportunity to make a profit.

In an email, FAA officials state, "The FAA's goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws.

But Hanes says he may voluntarily not comply. He doesnt feel hes doing anything wrong and says hes not making any money.

In the meantime, I'm not about to run and hide," he said. "I dont think that's the way we should conduct ourselves, is run and hide.

FAA officials have not responded to requests for clarification as to how they can get drone enthusiasts to "voluntarily" comply with the rules.


I find it amusing as this is starting to be like photographers getting stopped for being photographers.  :-\

Here's another one, no drone, but I was posting, so here goes:

NY: Walkway over the Hudson incident
Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by: "David J.Williams"

The Walkway over the Hudson is a linear park converted from an old railroad bridge that spans the Hudson River between Highland and Poughkeepsie, NY and is part of a walking/biking trail in the area. It has become popular with the general public and is also popular for railfans as the walkway provides an elevated view of the CSX River Subdivision on the West shore of the Hudson as well as Metro-North and Amtrak Passenger operations on the East shore. I have shot video and stills from the walkway on several occasions. This past Wednesday, I was set up with my backpack on the walkway surface and my scanner playing on the CSX frequency. As trains would approach, I would grab the camera and take shots of the trains. I was on scene for a couple of hours when a park service employee on routine patrol stopped by to say hello. She asked me if my radio was a ham radio....I replied that it was a scanner and that I use it to monitor train operations as part of my train photography hobby...lets me know when a train is near so I can be prepared to grab shots...If the train has interesting power, I will email it to other railfans further down the line to give them heads ups on what is coming toward them as I was doing with my smartphone. She replied all fine and good and then explained that the reason she stopped by was that several pedestrians walking by me had reported me as suspicious because I had a backpack ( with nothing inside aside from camera gear and bottled water) and that I was broadcasting railroad info on my radio. I responded that it was all simply related to the train hobby....She then wished me a good day and moved on.... Railfans routinely shoot from that walkway with scanners in hand and have done so for the several years that the walkway has been open..Internet searches will produce a wealth of pictures and videos shot from that walkway but apparently many in the general public do not understand the railfan hobby and the use of scanners as part of the hobby....Had I not had my radio playing, I probably would not have generated much attention.


Did I ever mention that I wear an earpiece, when I'm railfan shooting. I wonder if that's even more suspicious looking?  :) Fact is, I can hear the trains better and if they are near me, there's no way to hear anything on the scanner, without an earpiece in.


« Reply #73 on: March 16, 2015, 12:29 »
+3

« Reply #74 on: March 16, 2015, 13:44 »
+1
Marek, tnx for sharing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4301 Views
Last post June 07, 2012, 09:49
by disorderly
25 Replies
13792 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
2 Replies
2497 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 15:28
by nicksimages
3 Replies
1111 Views
Last post January 26, 2019, 03:15
by PZF
8 Replies
659 Views
Last post May 13, 2019, 19:42
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results