Near Misses...

[Wendell Adkins]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I'll agree with pretty well all of the above, especially:

It's wrong to just take a blanket "ban them" approach to drones - but unfortunately the irresponsibility and stupidity of some risks spoiling things for all.

But it falls into the classic risk assessment model - trying to weigh up benefits of an activity, chances of it going wrong, and consequences if it does go wrong. If I was in authority, then I'm sorry but this situation doesn't score very highly in the "benefits" section. An individual got some nice private footage .... so what?

I'm sure terrorists are only too aware of potential for their use of small drones - allowing free flight around sensitive areas can only increase their chance of "hiding in plain sight"..... and success.

Make these same arguments but replace "drones" with automobiles, guns, explosives, hazardous chemicals, radiation, knives, electricity, etc. I am sure your same point was made by many each time all of these were introduced but we forged ahead nonetheless. If we overly restricted or halted progress every time new technology came along, we would still be rubbing sticks together to stay warm.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Wendell Adkins

Make these same arguments but replace "drones" with automobiles, guns, explosives, hazardous chemicals, radiation, knives, electricity, etc. I am sure your same point was made by many each time all of these were introduced but we forged ahead nonetheless.

No. The difference between all the examples you give and drones (in the context Dave mentioned) is that if you do the same basic risk assessment ("benefit"-"chance of failure"-"consequence") then in each of the examples you cite there is at least a clear potential benefit. In some of the cases a massive one. In the case of flying a drone around the GG bridge, any benefit is solely to the owner, and does it really matter if it never takes place at all?

That is certainly not to say ALL drone flying must therefore be without benefit, quite the opposite.

But if Jeff Bezos was successful and we did start to see Amazon drones criss-crossing the skies, that's not to say we should expect to see drone free-for-all.

Expect such to be tightly regulated, and expect similar for other "public benefit" drone flying, especially in sensitive areas. But away from towns etc the regulations can be much lighter, similarly the requirement to prove "public benefit".

[Mike Watson]

Originally Posted by David Heath

In the case of flying a drone around the GG bridge, any benefit is solely to the owner, and does it really matter if it never takes place at all?

In the case of you driving your car... anywhere... is there a greater good to society, or would you have pretty much walked or done without in 1900?

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by David Heath

No. The difference between all the examples you give and drones (in the context Dave mentioned) is that if you do the same basic risk assessment ("benefit"-"chance of failure"-"consequence") then in each of the examples you cite there is at least a clear potential benefit. In some of the cases a massive one. In the case of flying a drone around the GG bridge, any benefit is solely to the owner, and does it really matter if it never takes place at all?

That is certainly not to say ALL drone flying must therefore be without benefit, quite the opposite.

But if Jeff Bezos was successful and we did start to see Amazon drones criss-crossing the skies, that's not to say we should expect to see drone free-for-all.

Expect such to be tightly regulated, and expect similar for other "public benefit" drone flying, especially in sensitive areas. But away from towns etc the regulations can be much lighter, similarly the requirement to prove "public benefit".

I think you have the concept of arbitrary and capricious backwards. We do not have to prove "public benefit" we are the public and yes if I can shoot video or sell MR's then I benefit, and I am the public. If you use the standard of what benefits the public automobiles would never have been built. Very few people benefited from owning a car in the early 1900's and there were more than a few coach builders and buggy whip manufacturers lobbying congress to protect their businesses and ban the automobile in much the way they are trying to ban drones. Most of the carriage builders eventually transitioned to building coach cars like Packards etc and where more prosperous then they would have been if they had successfully blocked the roll out of the automobile.

If the standard was what people thought was the public good at the time we'd still be in the stone age.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Yep, "public good" is a dangerous measuring stick to try to use (especially since it will mean different things to different people or groups)! Too much regulation and restriction already because a small minority are offended, frightened, or simply stupid...

I've said it before, if you outlaw stupidity, there will be no one left to guard and feed the inmates...




Having had numerous heli landings nearby where I live (in "first responder" scenarios, for some reason we have a lot of "ground based stupidity", requiring evac to trauma centers!), I've seen firsthand where a drone in the vicinity could have been disastrous.

One life flight heli was grounded in the middle of a major street because another FD heli coming in blew a CARDBOARD BOX into the LF rotors while landing... an average cardboard box... just debris sitting on the ground nearby a multiple fatality accident scene... it meant one injured party was delayed significantly from evac. A drone "hit" in the air might not bring down a heli, but would certainly result in grounding, based on the above... That Life Flight heli sat in the middle of a major street for HOURS... I never figured out whether they trucked it out or had a mechanic come out and certify it for flight...



The thing that is likely causing the most problem is the "cheap" drones that any idiot with a few extra bucks can buy because it looks cool... I bought a couple of those tiny R/C helis for just that reason, but they only fly indoors! Toys are OK indoors, but once you're out there potentially sharing airspace with real aircraft, there need to be some thoughtful rules.

Since "emergency" situations somewhat beg for "coverage" from the air, and are ALSO the most likely to involve other low flying aircraft, it would seem that is one area that needs some addressing. Flying around airports should probably require a "flight plan" (saw some Boeing footage from Farnsborough that was clearly a "drone" shot), or at least some sort of proper notice to alert other "pilots". Basically any "share the air" scenario requires some sensible R&Rs... but there are lots of other potential "drone" uses.

I'd expect that some form of "auto-return" function should be required if radio contact is lost. Probably some "operational ceiling" and line of sight requirements make sense... but beyond that, these are very useful "tools"... used properly they shouldn't represent a serious hazard to life, limb or property!

[John Nantz]

Political cartoon in todays news (history?) paper:

".......... yeah- especially with the drone videographer."
Milt Priggee, Editorial Cartoonist

[Simon Wood]

Tourist crashes drone into Yellowstone hot spring

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

If the standard was what people thought was the public good at the time we'd still be in the stone age.

Which is exactly why I said "That is certainly not to say ALL drone flying must therefore be without benefit, quite the opposite.

I thought I'd been quite specific to say that what I thought carried little general benefit are activities like "flying a drone around the GG bridge {for personal reasons}...." That is NOT the same as condemning all drone activities, period.

I well see that certain activities, certain uses of drones, may well be overall to the public good - be it usage by broadcasters or other video professionals, usage by emergency services, or even delivering packages for Amazon! But because of where such usage is likely to take place, such commercial usage is almost certain to require regulation, licensing and training - and proper insurance.

That needn't preclude all hobbyist usage (without expensive licensing etc) - as long as the latter doesn't take place in sensitive areas.

The problem isn't the drones - it's SOME individuals with an attitude of "I'm just going to do what I like!" that's the problem.

[Warren Kawamoto]

Here is a guy that sliced himself with a DJ Phantom II. Aren't those prop guards in the frame? He got quite a nasty cut nevertheless.
LiveLeak.com - Nasty cut from a quadcopter.

[Ivan Mosny]

Atatürk havalimanı üzerinde drone ile uçmak - YouTube

[Dave Baker]

Somewhat irresponsible overflying an airport wouldn't you think?

Dave

[Warren Kawamoto]

Here's a near miss at Heathrow today
Airbus A320 pilot spots drone just 50ft away in 'catastrophic' near-miss above Heathrow | UK | News | Daily Express

[John Nantz]

A drone “fell out of the sky” (actually, hit a building and fell down) and knocked a 25 year old woman unconscious in Seattle yesterday. The drone hit her in the head. This was during the Gay Pride parade.

The drone was ’18” square’ and weighed about 2 pounds the reports said. Fortunately, her boyfriend caught her before she fell otherwise she could have been more seriously injured.

The police are trying to identify who the “pilot” was. For some reason the “pilot” ran off and didn’t claim his drone.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

Here's a near miss at Heathrow today
Airbus A320 pilot spots drone just 50ft away in 'catastrophic' near-miss above Heathrow | UK | News | Daily Express

Interesting that the article is datelined yesterday, but the alleged incident took place back on March 15th.

[Warren Kawamoto]

This is the third time this week!

Drone Flying Too Close To Wildfire Grounds Forest Service Planes « CBS San Francisco