Could have been catastrophic if the drone was sucked into the engine.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Agreed. Saw it reported by the BBC this morning too.

BBC News - US air official says drone 'almost collided with plane' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27354269)

The pilot described a small camouflaged F-4 Fixed wing aircraft.

To my knowledge that is a model RC Airplane and NOT a drone. Model RC airplanes have been around for 50 years. This story is just the media sensationalizing to get viewers with the word drone I believe.

However, because of the prices now. I do think there are a bunch of irresponsible idiots out there who buy phantoms etc. so Its just a matter of time before some of these boneheads ruin it for the responsible flyers.

my 2cents.

P.S. Im not saying people who own Phantoms are idiots, I have one myself. Just saying there are alot of irresponsible people who do buy them.

Innocent people will get hurt needlessly. Without proper certification, it's just a matter of time...
LiveLeak.com - Drone Attacks innocent family on the beach! (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=370_1395771218)
LiveLeak.com - US airlines pilot says he almost crashed into a drone in mid-air (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e3_1399786850)

The one with the family at the beach looks like its the operator who knocks it down.

It was, he has the remote control in his hand.

John,

It does look like the operator was the one who batted it away, interestingly it also didn't appear like anyone was injured which also demonstrates that more often than not MR's aren't nearly as dangerous as people claim.

On the link about the near midair with US airways they show a picture of a "large" MR carrying a DSLR when in the article the pilot described the "RC" as a camouflaged F4 RC jet. First, even if it had been a MR the chances are it would have been a Phantom and not a MR worth approximately $8,000 with a $1500+ DSLR on it at that altitude. Second, there's also a hi probability that the F4 RC was a "Foamy" ducted fan that either some idiot was flying FPV or it was an out of control fly away that in the very unlikely chance that it would have been ingested into a jet engine would not have been catastrophic. Thirdly, the FAA contacted the DOD to see if it was one of theirs?

This whole thing is absurd. If anyone here wants commercial AP to be banned then start a thread stating that and make your case for banning it but posting youtube videos, news articles written by people who have little or no real knowledge of this issue and the resulting action taken by bureaucrats after reading these articles is pointless. It just serves to politicize the issue in a forum that I'm sure is meant to be about how to do AP safely and responsibly.

These kinds of threads are really getting old.

My opinion is that ONLY licensed/qualified operators should be allowed to fly cameras. I know absolutely nothing about this video here, but it needs no words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SFvEiOP6Zm4

My opinion is that ONLY licensed/qualified operators should be allowed to fly cameras. I know absolutely nothing about this video here, but it needs no words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SFvEiOP6Zm4

Here's another one. We need to get these menaces out of our lives! We need to license the operators, and make sure they are qualified!

Cars Crashing Into Stores - Compilation - YouTube

My opinion is that ONLY licensed/qualified operators should be allowed to fly cameras. I know absolutely nothing about this video here, but it needs no words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SFvEiOP6Zm4


Vertical Video Syndrome - A PSA - YouTube

Thank you Darren - you have no idea how much I needed that - if you were on reddit I'd give you gold

i do what i can :)

Another crash
Drone crashes into Met Square building downtown (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/05/07/drone-crash-metropolitan-square-building/8828895/)

Now the FAA has issued a fine on this guy for recklessness.
New York Drone Crash Prompts Second FAA Fine for Reckless Flight - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-05-02/new-york-drone-crash-prompts-second-faa-fine-for-reckless-flight)

I was at a little leauge game last month. A foul ball hit my cars rear windshield. You know.........broken window, near miss . a baby could have been in the backseat. Im calling the FAA.

Arlington, AT & T Stadium
Arlington drone crash, video raise questions - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com (http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25744330/aerial-video-of-arlington-filmed-from-drone-raises-safety-questions)

it's somewhat amusing to read hysterical headlines like "Drone Attacks innocent family on the beach! " it's also misleading when you find in fact that it was the operator that was 'attacked' or put another way flew the thing at himself!
Does anyone really believe that all the rules and regulations in the world are going to stop people being idiots? The thing is that, the operators that would follow all those rules and regulations are the ones that in the absence of rules would observe safe practises anyway.
Reckless people get into cars or on motorcycles, jet-skies use guns etc. a bit of perspective needs to be brought to the whole subject.
anyway it was kind of the stadium guys to give the quad back

on a side note any folks that do indulge in flying take note that it can be dangerous even to the operator

might be NSW
viewer discretion advised for those of a gentle disposition ;-)

Woman Violently Attacks Photographer on Beach for Using a Quadcopter (http://petapixel.com/2014/06/09/woman-violently-attacks-photographer-beach-using-quadcopter/)

I was at a little leauge game last month. A foul ball hit my cars rear windshield. You know.........broken window, near miss . a baby could have been in the backseat. Im calling the FAA.
I realize that you are being dramatic, but I gotta believe there is case law that says by parking your car near a baseball field, you took an assumed risk of getting hit by an errant baseball, and thus would have no claim for damages.
This would be different than if you were just driving along a public road, and got hit by a baseball. In this case, I gotta believe the owner of the baseball field might be liable since they did not take adequate steps to prevent the errant baseballs

OK posts that are complete speculation are in the same category as the paranoid loony that attacked the operator at the beach... both are completely unsupportable.

You can't just make law up as you go, unless of course you're an elected official... and even then, it's dangerous business!

"I realize that you are being dramatic"

Yes, I was but I did have a buddy that took a lady to see the SD Padres play. First date. It was before the game started, during batting practice. My friend leaned down in his seat to pick up his drink and heard a load "Pop" . He looked up and saw His date with Blood all over Her. The ball hit Her in the mouth.
Crazy. They had to go to the ER. And yes their was a disclaimer on the back of the ticket

@ Warren

When the automobile first came out people swore if you traveled more than 30 mph you would die. If you were to follow what you are doing now and replace the word "drone" with "auto" you would have hundreds of postings today about people that are careless and their careless actions caused harm or death to others right? I mean today.
Yet, Im willing to bet you also got in a car today.

So, you post every drone event around the world and proclaim them to be unsafe. But you have no numbers to back that up.

As I said, you got into a car today yet their are hundrds times more car crashes per day than drone crashes so why arent you more concerned with auto crashes ?

Because you have the ability to realize although there are hundreds of car crashes each day there are millions of cars being driven . The chance of a car crash isnt very high, I know because Im sure you use a car.

The same for drone, multis or what ever you want to call them. Two, three a day ? In the news? from world wide ? Not too bad I think. Im willing to be there are thousands of drones in the air at any given time

I went to a seminar Tuesday where a gentleman from General Atomic said there are 54 Preditors in the air every second of every day around the globe. No, they dont crash but what Im getting at is they are already here, being flone and people are not dying by the masses.

In face they have been out for about three or four years(multirotors), Millions sold by now Can you find me ONE death related to a mutirotor?

Yeah, I think unless you're a terrorist or enemy of the state, your chances of "death by drone" are pretty slim...

The problem is that because these drones are small and lightweight, they are not seen as potentially dangerous. That is the real problem. Put them into the hands of young men, and what you end up with is a competition of "who can make the best viral video" by pushing the envelope of safety. Go on youtube and you can find many videos of cameras flying over crowds of people. Once a drone operator loses his link for whatever reason, he has no control over where it will go down.

In Honolulu, we had a Memorial Day event at the beach where 40,000 people attended. There were 4 or 5 privately owned hexacopters with cameras buzzing overhead, directly over the crowd. 2014 Lantern Floating Festival - Ground and Aerial Drone footage - YouTube
Fortunately, there was no crash. It's true that nobody died....not yet. But to decrease the likelihood of injury or death, I still believe airborne camera operators should be licensed and certified. "Professional" teams consists of a drone operator that knows regulations and air safety, camera operator, and spotter. I believe this combination is the safest way to acquire aerial images. What the guy did above looks cool, but is not safe.


BTW another incident:
Drone crash prompts Vancouver to review film industry use - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/drone-crash-prompts-vancouver-to-review-film-industry-use-1.2671977)

If this guy did this to go viral on YouTube, he failed. He has something like 125 views in a month.

People doing AP professionally are not trying to create viral videos. Chances are even if there were the regulations in place that your so sure would save us from ourselves this guy would have done this video anyway. In fact I'm surprised that there were apparently so few MR's flying around that event.

You can't legislate stupidity.

Small planes and helicopters fly over public venues and crowded freeways all the time for all sorts of reasons. Jobs that could be handled by RC aircraft that would reduce the risk and expense ten fold. Jobs that won't happen if paranoid people create onerous regulations that prevent this industry from ever literally getting off the ground.

A Phantom and a GoPro does not a professional make. Considering the number of MR's flying it seems like the fear of serious injury and death is over exaggerated. Not to say that it isn't possible but I'm sure as soon as it happens you'll post the video here.

I am not a lawyer, but I would be concerned about the possibilities outlined below if I chose to use a drone.

Sooner or later, a drone will drop out of the sky for technical or operator error reasons and cause serious injuries or death to an unsuspecting person below. The operator of the craft and possibly others may be charged with manslaughter or some type of negligent homicide for causing death, or some lesser negligence charge for causing bodily injury. The specifics of the charges will depend on the jurisdiction where the incident occurs. In some ways, it doesn't matter if it is a lighting fixture, a drone or a piece of staging equipment falling on an individual, they can all cause harm. What is different is the drone is being flown so the decisions taken by the operator come into consideration. If there is some type of negligence, carelessness or disregard for human safety then the operator and others might be found guilty.

As well as a criminal charge there is the likelihood of a civil liability action. The injured party will look for compensation from the operator, owner and manufacturer of the equipment, and anyone else who might be held responsible. If an individual required ongoing medical care for decades as a result of being struck by a drone then the damages awarded could be very substantial. As the user of a drone would your insurance cover the liability? Does your existing liability insurance even cover the possibility of a drone incident?

If I intended to use a drone, I would want to carefully assess the risks and take steps to minimize the possibility of an accident. Thinking through the flight plan for the drone, in detail, would help identify risks and allow the operator to mitigate the potential for an incident. If the work required the drone to fly over people then flying the drone over the same area without anyone below would be a prudent step to confirm that the radio link was solid and the flight was doable.

Some questions come to mind. If the drone experiences a problem that might put someone at risk then what must the operator do? Under what circumstances must the operator terminate the flight and land the drone, and where? Is there some place close to the venue where the drone can be crashed quickly and safely if control problems develop? If an incident occurs and someone is hurt, how will medical care be provided? A flight and incident response plan should be documented so everyone knows what to expect and how to respond in the event of an incident.

Most of the technology used in production is not very dangerous and the consequences of failure are limited to production problems and loss of reputation. Drones are very different because they can cause injury and potentially death. If treated casually without consideration of potential risks, potentially fatal incidents will occur.

Ever Gaff tape a cable or move a tripod to keep it out of the way? AKA common sense...

The blades on these are usually plastic, not whirling stainless steel blades of death - the potential for injury is there, but having flown some of the toys with similar blades, it's crazy paranoia to be saying "the sky is falling" (OK, it's "things are falling out of the sky...").

Even the article from JANUARY noted the short term flight ban post crash was quickly LIFTED, and the benefits of MR AP were noted...

There will always be idiots behaving badly and doing dumb things with "technology" (go driving in any major city, if you have any doubts about this). Accidents can and do sometimes happen, even when care is taken. We still drive cars, take plane flights, walk across streets, use blenders and coffee makers... you can still buy Mentos and Soda, use electricity, shave... wear stripes and plaid, black socks with shorts, and white after labor day...

When the automobile first came out people swore if you traveled more than 30 mph you would die. If you were to follow what you are doing now and replace the word "drone" with "auto" you would have hundreds of postings today about people that are careless and their careless actions caused harm or death to others right? I mean today.
And right from the start cars and their use have been subject to legislation. In some instances that has become less restrictive - there's no longer a max 4mph speed limit and a requirement for the car to be preceded by a man waving a red flag - in other cases new regulations have been introduced with time. (Such as drink driving.)

Reading some posts on this forum it sometimes seems as if the arguments about drones are either an unrestricted free for all, or an outright ban. Practically - as with cars - surely the way forward is to establish sensible regulations to allow usage but reduce as far as possible potential problems regarding not just safety, but also privacy concerns and noise etc issues?

Chuck says "You can't legislate stupidity." Maybe not, not totally. But you can legislate to reduce it, and you can legislate to make sure that people who insist on being stupid may be prosecuted. And as example I'd quote drink driving laws. You still do get casualties through some being way over the limit - but nowhere near the amount that was the norm before the legislation was passed.

The difficult part is striking the balance between not being too restrictive for it's own sake, whilst looking after the safety and privacy of most.

Drone used by a Peeping Toms:

A woman in an apartment on the 26th floor of a high-rise building in Seattle was videoed by a couple guys using a drone.

One pays big bucks for an apartment like this because of the great view.

Unfortunately, she had just got out of bed and when she went to the window to look outside, what did she see? A drone with a video camera staring at her!!!

On this morning's news: Seattle woman sees drone peeping into her apartment window | News OK (http://newsok.com/seattle-woman-sees-drone-peeping-into-her-apartment-window/article/4952683)

So now what are these two guys going to do with their video? Post it on some voyeurism web site?

So, besides the noise, the danger of spinning blades, there is also the privacy concern.

Did you know that there were 418 US military drone crashes? I didn't...and these are professionals!
When drones fall from the sky | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/)

Crashes mount as military flies more drones in U.S. | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/crashes-mount-as-military-flies-more-drones-in-u-s/)

‘Stop saying ‘uh-oh’ while you’re flying’: Drone crash pilot quotes unveiled - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/stop-saying-uh-oh-while-youre-flying-drone-crash-pilot-quotes-unveiled/)

Slightly off topic...but a "sophisticated" drone crashed into security netting at Dublin prison yesterday. It had a camera on board - but collecting footage was not its purpose - it was delivering drugs to some inmates.

Drug-Smuggling Drone Crashes Into Dublin Prison (http://news.sky.com/story/1289299/drug-smuggling-drone-crashes-into-dublin-prison)

Did you know that there were 418 US military drone crashes? I didn't...and these are professionals!
When drones fall from the sky | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/)

Crashes mount as military flies more drones in U.S. | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/crashes-mount-as-military-flies-more-drones-in-u-s/)

‘Stop saying ‘uh-oh’ while you’re flying’: Drone crash pilot quotes unveiled - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/stop-saying-uh-oh-while-youre-flying-drone-crash-pilot-quotes-unveiled/)

You and the Washington Post are digging deep for this crap. They wrote that article sighting a 2011 study that also went on to say "Since 2009, as the Air Force has become more experienced at flying drones, the mishap rate for Predators has fallen to 4.79 Class A accidents for every 100,000 flight hours. Air Force officials pointed out that the crash rate for Reapers now approaches the standard set by two fighter jets, the F-16 and F-15, which over the past five years have posted Class A mishap rates of 1.96 and 1.47 respectively, according to statistics from the Air Force Safety Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico."

And this was for all drone flights since 2001!

This guy said it best:

dduggerbiocepts
6/22/2014 5:35 PM PDT
While the accident descriptions are remarkably detailed, when estimating the total population of military drones, the best the author could come up with was "about 10,000 - and that apparently is the number over a decade." Again a remarkable lack of precision compared to the crash descriptions. In any case it isn't the number of drones the military owns - but rather the number of drone flights over a given period of time compared to the their failure rate that produces a meaningful statistic. I'm guessing the author is completely clueless regarding the number of drone flights made annually and the percentage that result in a failure or crash and or how that compares to piloted reconnaissance flights on similar class missions. Smells strongly of bias and agenda.

I'm not sure if your trying to point out how unsafe drones are but your doing a great job of making the argument for how quickly these things are becoming safer., Of coarse you realize that non this has anything whatsoever to do with the purpose of this part of the Flying camera's thread.

Drone used by a Peeping Toms:

A woman in an apartment on the 26th floor of a high-rise building in Seattle was videoed by a couple guys using a drone.

One pays big bucks for an apartment like this because of the great view.

Unfortunately, she had just got out of bed and when she went to the window to look outside, what did she see? A drone with a video camera staring at her!!!

On this morning's news: Seattle woman sees drone peeping into her apartment window | News OK (http://newsok.com/seattle-woman-sees-drone-peeping-into-her-apartment-window/article/4952683)

So now what are these two guys going to do with their video? Post it on some voyeurism web site?

So, besides the noise, the danger of spinning blades, there is also the privacy concern.

You assume they were peeping into her window. The article never states that. They also had a tripod and camera on the street. Why? When I saw this story on national morning show, it was pointed out that they were doing aerial photography and not necessarily taking video of the woman inside her apartment.

One must always be prudent of media hype and sensationalism. We should not use this forum to help them in that endeavor.

-gb-

Greg -

Realize that the lady too[k] a picture of the drone with her cell phone or camera. The picture clearly showed a view angle looking slightly UPWARD and the underside of the drone can be seen.

The picture shows a lot of blue in the background. Either this is from a window reflection of the sky (no window frame in picture) or it is sky (looking between or over an existing building). If the drone was anywhere near street level, from the 26th floor there would have been asphalt, concrete, or other buildings in the view.

The backstory (several days later) once all the facts were in is that the guys were, in fact, doing what they said they were doing, and that is planning for a new skyscraper.

And yes, one needs to be careful what the media puts out. And this was a very sensational news item. My post was right after the morning news so I didn't have the hindsight of what they found out several days later.

I don't know if this was posted before but it's something I just read.
Crazed Woman Attacks Man for Flying Camera Drone over Public Beach in Connecticut (Updated) | Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC (http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/06/07/crazed-woman-attacks-man-flying-camera-drone-public-beach-connecticut/)

yeah mentioned here

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/flying-cameras/523417-near-misses.html#post1848592

just some of the risks connected with photography/videography

:-)

More recent near misses with commercial airlines
Close encounters with small drones on rise | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/)

Recent near misses with commercial airlines
Close encounters with small drones on rise | The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/)

All the more reason for the authorities to pull their head out of the sand and introduce some proper, realistic, governing rules about their use. No one likes having more rules and fewer freedoms, but at least if you know what the rules are you can fly with more confidence (assuming you're within them).

If everyone (including amateurs / hobbyists) had to adhere to the rules, such as those laid down by the CAA for air work in the UK then there would be far fewer incidents. While ever amateurs/hobbyists have few (or no) rules then they will continue to assume it's Ok to do what ever they want, when clearly it isn't.

Every drone should be accompanied by such 'rules of the air'. If you break the rules you get fined, go to jail and/or banned from flying, just like you do when driving a car dangerously.

There seems no reason why people should be flying these things out of sight (above the clouds) or even anywhere near that high, nor in to controlled air space or in the middle of crowded cities. It's crazy.

...and of course since it's the 4th of July, I had a hunch people would be flying around fireworks displays. What I didn't expect was trying to go THROUGH them.
Flying A Drone Through Fireworks May Land You In Prison - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/04/video-shows-drone-flying-through-fireworks/)

Had he not recorded the treachery, he would have been arrested for the claimed sexual assault. It's pretty sad when the police always believe a woman over a man. She was a total basket case, misandristic psycho with delusions of grandeur.

Idiotic article by Forbes trying to garner headlines with false titles and flawed logic. A whole lot of maybes. What if a bullfrog had a glass ass?

I thought it was spectacular aerial footage.

yeah mentioned here

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/flying-cameras/523417-near-misses.html#post1848592

:-)

Merged that thread into this one. Trying to keep all of the "incidents" together.

Headline: "2 drones in near-miss with NYPD chopper"

Two drones nearly took out an NYPD chopper over the George Washington Bridge on Monday, and cops arrested the wayward devices’ operators, law-enforcement sources told The Post.

The chopper tailed the drones north as they landed at the corner of Audubon and Fort George avenues, near Fort Tryon Park, at 12:35 a.m., sources said.

The chopper cops called NYPD Patrol, and officers were dispatched to nab the suspects.

Remy Castro, 23, who lives on nearby West 193rd Street, and Wilkins Mendoza, 34, of Post Road, were both arrested.

“It’s just a toy,” Castro said later at Manhattan Criminal Court, where they were arraigned on felony reckless endangerment charges and released without bail. “The copter came to us.”

Mendoza said the drone experiment was just fun and games.

“We were just playing with it,” he said. “It’s crazy.”

Their lawyer, Michael Kushner, said the incident was not as serious as authorities allege.

“This vehicle can’t go above 300 feet,” Kushner said. “They did nothing more than fly a kite.”

But a friend of the pair, Jonathan Reyes, 27, said Castro told him they have flown them as high as 5,000 feet.



There's more. Full story at 2 drones in near-miss with NYPD chopper | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/07/07/two-drones-in-near-miss-with-nypd-copter-over-gwb/)

Meanwhile in Australia, a triathlete went down when she was hit on the head. Authorities have finished their investigation and may prosecute.

Drone operators involved in athlete's injury referred to Director of Public Prosecutions (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/drone-operators-involved-in-athletes-injury-referred-to-director-of-public-prosecutions-20140708-zszsy.html)

Another one between full size helicopter and drone, in Florida.

Near-Collision Between Drone and Helicopter Rattles Pilots | NBC 6 South Florida (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Near-Collision-Between-Drone-And-Helicopter-Rattles-Pilots-267400371.html)

All of these are not "drones" , they are radio controlled model aircraft.

Here is what a drone is:

RQ-4 Global Hawk - YouTube

All of these are not "drones" , they are radio controlled model aircraft.
Language and the meaning of words is something that evolves, and the Oxford dictionary currently lists for drone:
A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile
- 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".

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.

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:

World's Smallest Radio Controlled Model Plane - YouTube

"Drones" used to mean unarmed target practice pilotless planes.

Well, er............actually it used to (and still does) mean worker bees and they don't even fly! :-)

Dave