Bryan Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Article in today's Times, Drone pilots must prove they know safety rules and register online. Legislation being introduced requiring pilots of drones over 250g to register online and take an online test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Although in Australia regulations prevent you from flying a drone less than 30m away from people, I've seen numerous instances of them being blatently ignored. The worst case was recently in a national park with lots of people around, when a toddler rushed to the landing drone and was stopped with her fingers only centimeters from the blades. Another case was in a crowded campsite where someone had obviously just got one for Xmas and was attempting its first wobbly take-off among his family crowded around. Don't know how no-one was decapitated or caravans hit. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 I consider them as dangerous as a car. Should be the same regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Do you think there will soon be as many drones as guns in the US of A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 48 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said: Do you think there will soon be as many drones as guns in the US of A? Why not? You have a drone in charge. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 14 hours ago, Bryan said: Article in today's Times, Drone pilots must prove they know safety rules and register online. Legislation being introduced requiring pilots of drones over 250g to register online and take an online test. This is the UK. This will be as much about raising a bit more cash by some govt agency charging like a wounded rhino for the licence as it is about safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 My son-in-law just flew his tiny drone (fits in palm of hand) and took footage of the exterior of our home to aid realtor selling our home. No way this drone is dangerous. He flew it in the inside of our house, and the rest of us took turns letting it land on our hand. Decent resolution, too. Not up to stock, mind you, but decent. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: No way this drone is dangerous. Betty In his hands, no, but what about at a few hundred feet, near an airport, in ignorant hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: In his hands, no, but what about at a few hundred feet, near an airport, in ignorant hands? And much bigger. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Allan Bell said: And much bigger. Allan IIRC the US lawsuit was brought by an aeromodeller so the exemption is up to 5lbs. - the size which damaged airlines windscreens in the CAA's trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 I'm talking about the exception, here. This tiny drone cannot fly at altitudes that aircraft does. It is so small that it can only be flown on windless days. I had to turn our ceiling fan off because the slight turbulence sent it crashing. No way could it survive the turbulence an airplane produces. So....no threat to aircraft...the aircraft wins every time no threat to people...unless you think those childs' windmills on a stick are threats. I guess if someone used the stick as a weapon? My argument doesn't apply to the normal-sized drones. I know they can be dangerous. BTW, here in Oklahoma last week we had a property owner suspected of stealing catarpillars, road graders, and related equipment. There wasn't enough evidence for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant. The guy had a metal barn down a long dirt road hidden by trees in the countryside. A drone was flown over (free air space), and the stolen goods lined up outside of the barn was filmed. Footage presented to a judge, search warrant obtained, arrest made, stolen equipment confiscated. One for the good guys. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, spacecadet said: IIRC the US lawsuit was brought by an aeromodeller so the exemption is up to 5lbs. - the size which damaged airlines windscreens in the CAA's trials. What about damage to jet engines when they are sucked in? 24 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said: I'm talking about the exception, here. This tiny drone cannot fly at altitudes that aircraft does. It is so small that it can only be flown on windless days. I had to turn our ceiling fan off because the slight turbulence sent it crashing. No way could it survive the turbulence an airplane produces. So....no threat to aircraft...the aircraft wins every time no threat to people...unless you think those childs' windmills on a stick are threats. I guess if someone used the stick as a weapon? My argument doesn't apply to the normal-sized drones. I know they can be dangerous. BTW, here in Oklahoma last week we had a property owner suspected of stealing catarpillars, road graders, and related equipment. There wasn't enough evidence for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant. The guy had a metal barn down a long dirt road hidden by trees in the countryside. A drone was flown over (free air space), and the stolen goods lined up outside of the barn was filmed. Footage presented to a judge, search warrant obtained, arrest made, stolen equipment confiscated. One for the good guys. Betty Betty the threat to aircraft is not when they are flying high so much but when they are taking off or coming in on landing approach. Drones can be a good thing in the right hands such as service sector operatives including, power companies, fire brigades, police forces, etc. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCee Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said: I'm talking about the exception, here. This tiny drone cannot fly at altitudes that aircraft does. It is so small that it can only be flown on windless days. I had to turn our ceiling fan off because the slight turbulence sent it crashing. No way could it survive the turbulence an airplane produces. So....no threat to aircraft...the aircraft wins every time no threat to people...unless you think those childs' windmills on a stick are threats. I guess if someone used the stick as a weapon? My argument doesn't apply to the normal-sized drones. I know they can be dangerous. BTW, here in Oklahoma last week we had a property owner suspected of stealing catarpillars, road graders, and related equipment. There wasn't enough evidence for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant. The guy had a metal barn down a long dirt road hidden by trees in the countryside. A drone was flown over (free air space), and the stolen goods lined up outside of the barn was filmed. Footage presented to a judge, search warrant obtained, arrest made, stolen equipment confiscated. One for the good guys. Betty I suspect that if you had to turn off your celing fan lest it be blasted out of the sky, then it's unlikely to be a major worry to anything, with the possible exception of butterflies. Trouble is, lots of these things of considerable size are being bought by total idiots here in the UK, who not having being loaned a brain cell for the day, go out and see how high they can get them to. As you can guess, these self same idiots uually live within spitting distance of a major airport. On that basis, the sooner regs are brought in, the better - at least if I fly out to Spain on my summer hols I'm not putting my life in the hands of someone who jusy maxed out his credit card on the latest DJI Pantom ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Allan, did you not understand I was talking about the tiny one? That I acknowledged the full-sized drones were a threat, but the tiny one would be sent crashing to the ground from the wind turbulence caused by aircraft before it got anywhere near enough to be a problem? At any altitude? If my ceiling fan set to low caused it to crash, multiply that by thousands from aircraft. Youre not winning this one, dear Allan! As I said, read my lips, the palm-sized drone is an exception! Once I move to Wichita, near my son-in-law, he will be possibly be teaching me to fly drones. He is on a team at Wichita State University to build a very large drone funded by our government. Drones are here to stay. All the hair pulling and gnashing of teeth won't stop it. Good laws have to be in place to govern the use of them for the protection of the public. Cattle ranching is big in Oklahoma. So is cattle rustling. The ranchers are thrilled to have drones to check on their herds. As Geoff says, a cow is special. That's why, as a child, I named all of ours and tried to ride one. Of course, it was only a stand-in for the horse I desired. The time on the cow's back was only seconds anyway. Churlish beast. I digress. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 minute ago, TeeCee said: I suspect that if you had to turn off your celing fan lest it be blasted out of the sky, then it's unlikely to be a major worry to anything, with the possible exception of butterflies. Trouble is, lots of these things of considerable size are being bought by total idiots here in the UK, who not having being loaned a brain cell for the day, go out and see how high they can get them to. As you can guess, these self same idiots uually live within spitting distance of a major airport. On that basis, the sooner regs are brought in, the better - at least if I fly out to Spain on my summer hols I'm not putting my life in the hands of someone who jusy maxed out his credit card on the latest DJI Pantom ... I agree whole-heartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 32 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said: I agree whole-heartedly. Disagree. There was a report of a child being nearly blinded by the unprotected rotors on a palm size drone. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said: Allan, did you not understand I was talking about the tiny one? That I acknowledged the full-sized drones were a threat, but the tiny one would be sent crashing to the ground from the wind turbulence caused by aircraft before it got anywhere near enough to be a problem? At any altitude?If my ceiling fan set to low caused it to crash, multiply that by thousands from aircraft. Youre not winning this one, dear Allan! As I said, read my lips, the palm-sized drone is an exception! Then I do need to add what i'd decided not to bother with earlier. The same FAA exception which allows your SiL's dragonfly allows drones up to the sort of weight which damaged airliner windscreens in our trials in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 3 hours ago, Allan Bell said: Disagree. There was a report of a child being nearly blinded by the unprotected rotors on a palm size drone. Allan I was agreeing about the regulations part. As far as a child nearly getting a damaged eye, we can't cure idiots. Or accidents. I personally know a man (family member) who was playing horseshoes with other adults. He threw the horse shoe, and just as it left his hand, his 5 year old son ran around the corner of the house and into the path of the shoe. You could see his brain through the wound. He survived, but his father lives with the guilt. I guess we need to regulate or ban the game of horseshoes. Or people need to think ahead...if I launch this, have I set up a blind corner? Most people don't consider worst case scenarios. I happen to be one who does consider them. In fact, my worst case scenarios often play out in my brain in living color like movies. Sometimes, a bit of ESP. Guaranteed to scare me to death, but also a good way to prevent avoidable accidents. And my 3 kids grew up safe. Maybe a bit overprotected, but safe. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 It seems a pity that drone regulation is necessary, but I do think it is a good thing. I would like to see it go much further than what is proposed. I feel already that drones and their operators are viewed with suspicion by the general public and I can see this suspicion gradually but easily turning to active loathing if widespread misuse of drones becomes apparent. I would like to see drones which are licensed for commercial filming to be visibly identifiable as such, so that at least it can be pointed out that the operator is working within the law and is qualified and licenced to do so. There are numerous reasons why this is probably impractical and probably almost unenforceable, but the troubles emanating from this particular Pandoras box may prove to be very troublesome indeed in the future and the more that is done to keep a lid on it at an early stage, the better. The small drones such as Betty describes will be exempt from the prospective UK regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Lowe Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 While it may be impractical for drones to have a visible licence identification it is certainly within the scope of today's technology for the drones to transmit a 'digital licence'.... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/dji-invisible-license-plate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Jeff, it will be interesting to hear the outcome of this particular case. If they publish it, that is. I do know that the drug inforcement officials fly drones in the countryside to discover marijuana fields. A guy the other day saw the drone over his patch, and tried to set it on fire. That failed and he ran, but was caught. I've never heard of any privacy issues connected with these arrests. I think if you are sunbathing in the nude in a fenced private area on your property, and a drone flies over, it would cause repercussions. Yikes. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 8 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said: > A drone was flown over (free air space), and the stolen goods lined up outside of the barn was filmed. Footage presented to > a judge, search warrant obtained, arrest made, stolen equipment confiscated. Predicting defense will claim invasion of privacy. But it may not work unless person was in film. There is expectation of privacy when one is on one's isolated private property, in fenced backyard, etc. It is the filming-recording that invades, not flying over property, as air above ground is controlled by FAA. If someone happened to keep their empty prescription bottles outside & that information was filmed, that's clear invasion involving private property. Whether other kinds of property, even stolen, can be invaded, IDK... But in this case there was no doubt other evidence, such as descriptions of the stolen goods, and reasonable suspicion to back up the warrant. It wasn't a fishing expedition. One would hope there is a public interest defence of invasion of privacy. As to the sunbathing, there's a trial here at the moment about a police officer recording consenting adults from a helicopter, but it's about misconduct. The violation of privacy is a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 14 hours ago, Betty LaRue said: I was agreeing about the regulations part. As far as a child nearly getting a damaged eye, we can't cure idiots. Or accidents. I personally know a man (family member) who was playing horseshoes with other adults. He threw the horse shoe, and just as it left his hand, his 5 year old son ran around the corner of the house and into the path of the shoe. You could see his brain through the wound. He survived, but his father lives with the guilt. I guess we need to regulate or ban the game of horseshoes. Or people need to think ahead...if I launch this, have I set up a blind corner? Most people don't consider worst case scenarios. I happen to be one who does consider them. In fact, my worst case scenarios often play out in my brain in living color like movies. Sometimes, a bit of ESP. Guaranteed to scare me to death, but also a good way to prevent avoidable accidents. And my 3 kids grew up safe. Maybe a bit overprotected, but safe. Betty I used to play "Swing ball" with my daughter when she was young and we both used to hit the ball around the pole hard and fast. She was a big girl for her age, not fat, tall and strong. A bit later in life when the "Swing ball" thing was done I thought one day what would have happened if I had hit the hard ball and it had hit her in the temple. It really doesn't bear thinking about and I still break in to a sweet when I think about it. As you say if we try to prevent every accident with forward planning in our personal lives we would not do anything. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.