Educate Me

[JBAndrew]

I can certainly appreciate your frustration. The government has never been great at multi-agency coordination. Unfortunately, this is one of the key problems analysts cite that permitted 911 to happen in the first place. Make a difference! Run for office!! While you are right that "ground level" high-resolution photography and videography is generally permitted, drones offer a vastly different and even potentially real-time perspective. We, of course, love them largely for this reason. As such, however, they can become a critical security risk. Drones are being used by criminal elements around the world, so these risks are highly documented. At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that while these restrictions take away some of our "fun", we are also protected by them as well.

 

[DoomMeister]

I can believe that from military grade craft that can stay in the air for hours on end. The video from aircraft we have access to is very limited in a real-time scenario. The high res video would have to be processed and have telemetry data added. This is not a real-time possibility with the Yuneec aircraft.

Much better data can be obtained by ground based vehicles and high res cameras with GPS capabilities.

Once again it is the “drone” terminology that puts the damper on the on things along with all the fake news to go along with it. Yes I’m playing my Trump card on this one.

 

[JBAndrew]

Once again it is the “drone” terminology that puts the damper on the on things along with all the fake news to go along with it. Yes I’m playing my Trump card on this one.

Well, terminology aside, if you lived in the valley below the *** in question, you would not want UAV's of any ilk flying over it. Of this I am certain.

 

[DoomMeister]

I’m not referring to the *** itself. That only makes sense. But the lands and reservoir well above the *** itself makes no sense. There is boat traffic on the water and they sure don’t inspect the contents of the boats before they are launched. Any payload from a multirotor air craft would be minuscule in comparison to what could be launched from a watercraft.

4K video from 100 feet up with a wide angle lens is not all that detailed. You can see people, but you can’t distinguish details. Likewise for geographical and structural details. They are like having a cell phone in the air.

You can still see about the same data from Google Earth. Just not as focused(clear).

 

[JBAndrew]

I’m not referring to the *** itself. That only makes sense. But the lands and reservoir well above the *** itself makes no sense. There is boat traffic on the water and they sure don’t inspect the contents of the boats before they are launched. Any payload from a multirotor air craft would be minuscule in comparison to what could be launched from a watercraft.

4K video from 100 feet up with a wide angle lens is not all that detailed. You can see people, but you can’t distinguish details. Likewise for geographical and structural details. They are like having a cell phone in the air.

You can still see about the same data from Google Earth. Just not as focused(clear).

Right, clarity of detail from the air is probably a key concern (among others). My guess is that you view your 4K footage on "high definition" monitors which are typically at a resolution of 1,920 x 1,080 pixels, possibly even 720p. 4K footage is 4,096 × 2,160 pixels. It is not hard to pick out a penny on the ground at an elevation of 100' on an actual 4K monitor. In addition to this, various optical zoom lenses can be retrofit to nearly any 4K optical system which vastly improves what can be seen in detail from the air.

4K resolution - Wikipedia

On a side note to respond to your earlier comments regarding "military grade" drones, if our government cannot get their agencies operating at a cooperation level high enough to correctly identify no-fly zones, do you really think they would be good enough to ascertain the difference between one UAV and another based on the specs? It is far more fair and straightforward to just make a blanket statement that restricts ALL UAV's in certain areas that they deem sensitive for one reason or another.

 

[DoomMeister]

Try size of the drone. Military grade is way bigger than anything on the commercial market. Communication with that type of craft is a lot different than the short range RC or WiFi used on commercially available systems.

Don’t misunderstand where I am coming from. We need to protect our infrastructure in the US, but we also need to act with common sense and not cover everything with the same post 911 scare blanket.

If boats and ATV’s are allowed in an area, there is absolutely no reason to prohibit multirotor aircraft from that same area. It’s a dual standard and makes no practical sense what so ever. In fact it is more likely to lead to illegal flights as it makes no sense to be prohibited.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Edit: Just saw DM's post saying essentially the same.

Just a thought but; when a governing body such as the Feds, State or as in this case USACE, decides to make essentially a "Drone Free Zone" in order to safeguard against possible "Evil Doers" over a given area, unless they are prepared to do something in real time to stop said doers, the only people they are going to stop are people that have no ill intentions at all.

I agree with @DoomMeister that the terminology is the problem and people that have no idea as to the capabilities of "Drones" are making rules that would supposedly stop a scenario they can't predict meanwhile; there is tech out there that goes un-noticed that can do far more damage.

 

[JBAndrew]

Edit: Just saw DM's post saying essentially the same.

Just a thought but; when a governing body such as the Feds, State or as in this case USACE, decides to make essentially a "Drone Free Zone" in order to safeguard against possible "Evil Doers" over a given area, unless they are prepared to do something in real time to stop said doers, the only people they are going to stop are people that have no ill intentions at all.

I agree with @DoomMeister that the terminology is the problem and people that have no idea as to the capabilities of "Drones" are making rules that would supposedly stop a scenario they can't predict meanwhile; there is tech out there that goes un-noticed that can do far more damage.

Haha, now we are talking about the chicken and the egg. There is currently a very hot debate occurring all across our country regarding gun control. One side states that if guns were not available, we would not have school shootings. The other side states that criminals will get guns anyway and that we need less restriction so that citizens can shoot people who are killing people with guns. Who is right? Likely we will soon end up with some kind of middle ground.

This has more or less already happened with UAVs. There are lots of places we can fly them, and also places we would like to fly where we are restricted from doing so. Will criminals do so anyway? Probably. Will "innocent" UAV pilots ignore restrictions and attempt to fly those areas also? Probably on occasion depending on where the footage ends up. If the issue gets pressed too hard by those who ignore no-fly zones, government agencies will probably arrest people who post footage of those areas online and use the public existence of footage as evidence against them. Furthermore, UAV software can easily be configured to prevent a multicopter from even operating in those zones. In other words, if rules are not followed willingly, the government will apply pressure on manufacturers and has already done so to a degree. This could get much worse and is yet very likely to occur based on a number of articles I have personally read on the subject.

In my opinion, it is best to appreciate the opportunities we have rather than to "fight the man" so to speak in the interest of flying illicitly. On the bright side, legal restrictions have already been reduced in the area of pilot licensing.

 

[JBAndrew]

Try size of the drone. Military grade is way bigger than anything on the commercial market. Communication with that type of craft is a lot different than the short range RC or WiFi used on commercially available systems.

Don’t misunderstand where I am coming from. We need to protect our infrastructure in the US, but we also need to act with common sense and not cover everything with the same post 911 scare blanket.

If boats and ATV’s are allowed in an area, there is absolutely no reason to prohibit multirotor aircraft from that same area. It’s a dual standard and makes no practical sense what so ever. In fact it is more likely to lead to illegal flights as it makes no sense to be prohibited.

I know for a fact that small military drones are used. They are not much different in appearance than your average garden variety fixed wing scale model of your favorite plane. It would be quite difficult to tell the difference.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Haha, now we are talking about the chicken and the egg. There is currently a very hot debate occurring all across our country regarding gun control. One side states that if guns were not available, we would not have school shootings. The other side states that criminals will get guns anyway and that we need less restriction so that citizens can shoot people who are killing people with guns. Who is right? Likely we will soon end up with some kind of middle ground.

This has more or less already happened with UAVs. There are lots of places we can fly them, and also places we would like to fly where we are restricted from doing so. Will criminals do so anyway? Probably. Will "innocent" UAV pilots ignore restrictions and attempt to fly those areas also? Probably on occasion depending on where the footage ends up. If the issue gets pressed too hard by those who ignore no-fly zones, government agencies will probably arrest people who post footage of those areas online and use the public existence of footage as evidence against them. Furthermore, UAV software can easily be configured to prevent a multicopter from even operating in those zones. In other words, if rules are not followed willingly, the government will apply pressure on manufacturers and has already done so to a degree. This could get much worse and is yet very likely to occur based on a number of articles I have personally read on the subject.

In my opinion, it is best to appreciate the opportunities we have rather than to "fight the man" so to speak in the interest of flying illicitly. On the bright side, legal restrictions have already been reduced in the area of pilot licensing.

Well I wasn't going to go there but yes, this is exactly the point. Here in Modern America, we now have two kinds of "Gun Free" Zones, those like in Schools where the law itself is known but not enforced and then; the ones like at the White House where, there is an active measure to make it so. My point is people that are going to do ill or harm will do so irregardless of a law. Murder is against the law - why does it not work?

True story - 16 years ago, back when I was very active in RC I was a a large jet meet held at an active airport in Lakeland Florida, at the very airport where they hold Sun N Fun. At the event there were six active pilot stations and RC aircraft were flying continuously throughout the day (The runway we were on was closed to GA). I was flying a turbine powered jet aircraft that had a top speed of around 185 and a fuel load (Over a Gallon) of about 25 minutes, and a take off weight of 48 pounds, seven feet long with a wingspan of six feet - pretty typical. I got my channel clearance, was fueled and me and my spotter prepped the plane and started the engine and just before taxi-ing out to the active, the contest director came on and announced the airport was landing an aircraft on an adjacent runway to ours and that all RC aircraft would have to land and hold for about four minutes. No Problem, I attached the ground fuel tank to the aircraft and left it at idle rather than go thru shut down and a cooling cycle then another start - it was simpler to run for four minutes, top off and then fly.

To our astonishment we were later told that the aircraft that was landing was carrying a VIP as she was giving a speech nearby. The plane landed and disembarked the passengers within clear sight of us about 1200 feet away.

Here is a picture of what landed a stones through away from an active RC event.

Just saying.

 

[JBAndrew]

Well I wasn't going to go there but yes, this is exactly the point. Here in Modern America, we now have two kinds of "Gun Free" Zones, those like in Schools where the law itself is known but not enforced and then; the ones like at the White House where, there is an active measure to make it so. My point is people that are going to do ill or harm will do so irregardless of a law. Murder is against the law - why does it not work?

True story - 16 years ago, back when I was very active in RC I was a a large jet meet held at an active airport in Lakeland Florida, at the very airport where they hold Sun N Fun. At the event there were six active pilot stations and RC aircraft were flying continuously throughout the day (The runway we were on was closed to GA). I was flying a turbine powered jet aircraft that had a top speed of around 185 and a fuel load (Over a Gallon) of about 25 minutes, and a take off weight of 48 pounds, seven feet long with a wingspan of six feet - pretty typical. I got my channel clearance, was fueled and me and my spotter prepped the plane and started the engine and just before taxi-ing out to the active, the contest director came on and announced the airport was landing an aircraft on an adjacent runway to ours and that all RC aircraft would have to land and hold for about four minutes. No Problem, I attached the ground fuel tank to the aircraft and left it at idle rather than go thru shut down and a cooling cycle then another start - it was simpler to run for four minutes, top off and then fly.

To our astonishment we were later told that the aircraft that was landing was carrying a VIP as she was giving a speech nearby. The plane landed and disembarked the passengers within clear sight of us about 1200 feet away.

Here is a picture of what landed a stones through away from an active RC event.

Just saying.

View attachment 9653

I am not quite sure what your point is, however, without a doubt we have laws that get actively enforced, and ones that don't. Conversely, we have penalties assessed that run the gamut depending on who is calling the shots in a given situation. Clearly, things are not perfect.

I think it is awesome you can fly RC jets! Those things are just flat awesome.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Yeah, I got a little off topic. I guess my point is; no matter how much we allow our government to make rules to protect/limit us, they are incapable of doing so and prove it time and again. And I think that personal responsibility among a people is the surest way to stay safe - not off load it to the state. Thats all. And the point about the VIP landing - we all sat there asking if they were crazy - my point there is: most of the RC aircraft that the FAA has off-loaded supervision of, to a community-based organization like the AMA, are far and away more dangerous than the typical consumer level "Drone" will ever hope to be

I am no longer active in RC at that level it took too much time, money and travel. Now I just fly my little Typhoon H and take pics and video. Just not of any places that are not allowed.

 

[JBAndrew]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. One thing we can all agree on is that most people are responsible and sensible. The minority are not. Unfortunately, it is not generally the irresponsible people who pay the price for this, but the responsible people.

With regards to "multicopters" vs. fixed-wing RC planes (if I get your drift) I think a real political pressure point is privacy. Using the lake example, most people in bathing suits don't particularly want to find themselves on YouTube. This issue is not terribly unlike the concerns the government has with "critical infrastructure". As a general rule, your typical RC plane was not used for high-resolution aerial photography and videography. The typical quadcopter is.

I think your use of the Typhoon H is wise. Personally, I am a media producer and recently acquired 4 Q500 Typhoon 4K quads. I am working on learning how to fly them simultaneously to cover events from multiple angles at once.

 

[Ty Pilot]

So I take it you are getting your 107? Thats a good thing. I am also a commercial 107 and because of they type of work we do I am always overly cautious when flying next to other properties and houses. But to be honest with all the negative press towards "Drones" I'm getting to where I want to pursue other avenues of use with them.

 

[JBAndrew]

So I take it you are getting your 107? Thats a good thing. I am also a commercial 107 and because of they type of work we do I am always overly cautious when flying next to other properties and houses. But to be honest with all the negative press towards "Drones" I'm getting to where I want to pursue other avenues of use with them.

That is correct. With regards to "negative press", well that kind of sums up the crux of the privacy issue. My gut is that the political problems with UAVs will diminish as the issues creating frustration for people also diminish. I am sure the work you do is both beneficial to those you work with, and also for your own household. My honest suggestion would be to stick it out buddy!!

 

[Ty Pilot]

Hmm, you are not as old an cynical as me I see. Consumer "drones" will always have the negative effect that they enjoy today, well into the future - much like model airplanes. When you tell someone outside of the hobby that you fly model airplanes, they envision the old balsa wind up models, that hasn't changed even thought the hobby clearly did.

And I meant that the real estate aerial work is very limited and I am going after different avenues of UAV work, not getting out of flying.

 

[JBAndrew]

Hmm, you are not as old an cynical as me I see. Consumer "drones" will always have the negative effect that they enjoy today, well into the future - much like model airplanes. When you tell someone outside of the hobby that you fly model airplanes, they envision the old balsa wind up models, that hasn't changed even thought the hobby clearly did.

And I meant that the real estate aerial work is very limited and I am going after different avenues of UAV work, not getting out of flying.

Haha, well I am 50, so that is pretty old by most people's standards, certainly old enough to be cynical, I just choose not to be. Regarding consumer UAVs, I hope you are wrong. No-fly zones should help with this over time. On another note, I have a good friend who is absolutely passionate about his HUGE collection of scale RC aircraft. I don't know ANYONE who is not hugely impressed by what he does. Most of them were built by him personally.

Good to hear you are finding a way to keep doing what you love!

 

[PatR]

JB,

In ways I agree with you but others I don’t. One of the dams nearby that’s banned for drone flights has all the “critical infrastructure” at ground level next to a public highway, in plain sight. The *** itself is an earth filled structure that would require a lot of bang to damage.

In my conversations with the managing agency they agreed that drone photography could not be nearly as revealing as photos taken from cars right next to the equipment. A chain link fence is all the “security” provided if you don’t count a couple of security cameras. If anything was to happen help is close to an hour distant due to sparse law enforcement coverage.

My point being that “knee jerk” regulations due little or nothing to protect anyone but do instantly further restrict those that are law abiding. We should not be too quick to give things up in the name of public safety as it does not take long to lose everything under the same guise.

 

[JBAndrew]

JB,

In ways I agree with you but others I don’t. One of the dams nearby that’s banned for drone flights has all the “critical infrastructure” at ground level next to a public highway, in plain sight. The *** itself is an earth filled structure that would require a lot of bang to damage.

In my conversations with the managing agency they agreed that drone photography could not be nearly as revealing as photos taken from cars right next to the equipment. A chain link fence is all the “security” provided if you don’t count a couple of security cameras. If anything was to happen help is close to an hour distant due to sparse law enforcement coverage.

My point being that “knee jerk” regulations due little or nothing to protect anyone but do instantly further restrict those that are law abiding. We should not be too quick to give things up in the name of public safety as it does not take long to lose everything under the same guise.

Thank you for your comments Pat. For the record, I am not personally thrilled about some of the no-fly zones that exist. For example, the ones over public parks seem like overkill to me. That said, it is crucial to keep in mind comments that TyPilot made: "Consumer 'drones' will always have the negative effect that they enjoy today, well into the future." Why is this the case? I honestly believe the crux of the issue is privacy.

There are a lot of people in this country that prefer to avoid showing up on social media in some kind of less than flattering way. They also want to protect their families from various forms of "violation". Their collective concern has the created no-fly zones we deal with today. Clearly, this issue affects parks, lakes, and residential neighborhoods. Privacy of those swimming & sunbathing is probably the key reason UAVs are not allowed on reservoirs more so than the impact on the dams themselves regardless of what the government statements on the subject actually say in writing. The impact on airports is a no-brainer.

As I said before, if you stop to think about it, no-fly zones make sense to those they protect. As such, our responsibility is to respect what makes others uncomfortable. This is actually a Biblical concept as well, not that I am here to preach because I am not. We have to understand this is not just our country, but theirs as well. I am quite confident you don't want UAVs buzzing over your children playing in the fountain at your local park. In any case, I myself am also limited by the same zones that you are. I am, however, supremely confident that there is enough nature for all of us. We just have to be more creative. Incidentally, some of the best movies ever made are those where the producers and directors were limited in some crucial way. They had to become very creative to solve this, and the results were spectacular. Do the same!

 

[Ty Pilot]

Such is an example of "Jaws" presumably. Good Point. But if I may, the issue about privacy and the way you framed it is perhaps not the whole issue. Anyone that goes to a public place has no expectation of privacy, certainly nothing like that which they are afforded in their home. I still have a problem understanding how anyone could have a problem with a consumer UAV in terms of privacy while in public. Might it be expected that these same people in their day to day life do things like take their kids to a mall for lunch and a movie. In a four hour trip as such to the mall do they have any idea how many cameras have captured their images - most of which with out their knowledge? Traffic Cameras, ATM's, all manner of stores' cameras, tons of other people catching them in their own selfies perhaps and not to mention their own phone which they have gleefully given permission for multiple apps to blab every detail and in some cases record some or part of what they do. But a drone? Oh well we have to regulate that.

And just to be clear, there is; or should be, a line between voyeurism and privacy. For instance what if I am out with my family and I want to take a picture of me with my wife and girls on the beach? If I take a picture and capture someone else in the picture, that is not an invasion of privacy - we are in public. On the other hand if someone seeks out an individual or individuals and begins to to follow and photograph - that is a whole different thing. The problem is we do not define it as such but there rules are on the book. Why not put a sign up that outlaws voyeurism - clearly define it and have a nice day.

Sorry, but the public perception of "Drones" has been well crafted and built very much like the perception that has all of academia worried about AI in the future. These same pen heads were the ones telling everyone that at the turn of the millennia, all forms of electronics would fail, computers would go dark, planes would fall out of the sky. Anyone remember all of that? The problem as I see it is we have a large portion of society that see no good use and in fact just the opposite - that drones are only for bad. Therefore outlawing them is good. And when we in the UAV community agree to any of it, we are essentially agreeing with the ideology (and that is what it is) that drones are bad.

It is a symbiotic relationship between the ill informed public and a growing bureaucracy that understand there is no power in the word "yes" ie, permission. The public is agitated and frightened by the boogie man and begs the state to intervene of their behalf - in the name of safety and protection of course; and the state obliges.

A perfect example of this insanity is the nationwide "Click it or Ticket" campaign aimed and getting more people to buckle up. Okay, thats well and good and on the surface it makes perfect sense. But then you have states like us here in Florida where the politicians have been lobbied to death to allow people to ride motorcycles without helmets. SO if you're in a car we care about you but on a bike we don't? No, the obvious answer is they are not doing for anyone's safety - their doing it for any number of reasons and using "Safety" as the PR campaign cause they know that works every time.

Sorry for the rant I am trying to bring a UAV program into our local Fire Department and the city council see "no valid reason at this time" I suppose they are prepping for the attack of the autonomous vacuum cleaners in 2022.