Flying drones into fireworks - stupid or genius?

[Brian Drysdale]

In that article there is a link to the Academy of Model Aeronautics guidelines: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

Part of the problem seems to be that quite a few users don't seem to follow any guidelines, which doesn't really help the situation. Also, the uses that drones are being put to aren't always covered by the requirements for flying traditional model aircraft.

[Dave Partington]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

........You can launch a weather balloon with 12 lbs of weight in it and launch it all the way into space... Not a single license is required. None of these things require a license.. All of these things could cause injury to a person. But, for some reason, "drones" are considered dangerous and can't be allowed...

While I totally sympathise with your thoughts, I have a feeling that once you mount a camera on them and start selling the footage then licences would be required, at least here in the UK. Anything that's airborne that has a camera and you use for commercial gain is going to need a licence AND insurance.

[Brian Drysdale]

There are regulations for weather balloons (or fine print for their free use) and there's also a recovery system for the payload i.e a parachute. I don't think there's any issue with them carrying cameras.

http://cdn.makezine.com/make/24/Make...loon_11x17.pdf

[Jim Michael]

There are regulations pertaining to free balloons. In the USA you would need to publish a NOTAM announcing the intent to launch the balloon, e.g. How to File a HIBAL NOTAM

[Phil Goetz]

We sent a Panasonic GH4 and Sony AX100 out with a client over the holiday weekend. Hopefully we'll have a report soon.

[Dave O'Melia]

In terms of responsibility, if the drone is flown over an area that holds no people, the only loss that can occur is to the person flying the drone. Regulations don't control idiots.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Dave O'Melia

In terms of responsibility, if the drone is flown over an area that holds no people, the only loss that can occur is to the person flying the drone.

Not necessarily, it depends on distances but it's quite plausible that a large firework could hit a drone, be damaged and deflected obliquely downwards. May not be likely, but it's only got to happen once.....

Likewise, a damaged drone could then veer off sideways to travel a fair distance before crashing.

Maybe more likely is that if the person in charge of the display sees an object amongst the fireworks, they'll abort the display.

Regulations don't control idiots.

That is simply not true. Regulations may not stop all idiotic behaviour, but they can severely limit it. I've already given the example of drink driving laws - it may be true that you still hear about some really stupid behaviour (and it's consequences), but it's a fraction of what it was when there were no laws.

In the past, if you drove under the influence of alcohol it was only legally relevant if there was an accident. With the regulation it's an offence, period, even if no accident. Result is far fewer people driving about with too many drinks - and a big reduction in death and injury.

[Wendell Adkins]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Not necessarily, it depends on distances but it's quite plausible that a large firework could hit a drone, be damaged and deflected obliquely downwards. May not be likely, but it's only got to happen once.....

Likewise, a damaged drone could then veer off sideways to travel a fair distance before crashing.

Maybe more likely is that if the person in charge of the display sees an object amongst the fireworks, they'll abort the display.

That is simply not true. Regulations may not stop all idiotic behaviour, but they can severely limit it. I've already given the example of drink driving laws - it may be true that you still hear about some really stupid behaviour (and it's consequences), but it's a fraction of what it was when there were no laws.

In the past, if you drove under the influence of alcohol it was only legally relevant if there was an accident. With the regulation it's an offence, period, even if no accident. Result is far fewer people driving about with too many drinks - and a big reduction in death and injury.

Or my personal favorite - worthless, half-assed laws that are all but unenforceable such as texting while driving. In most cases they are secondary offenses, meaning the person can only be cited for texting if pulled over for a more severe, primary offense. I do a lot of driving; nine times out of ten when a car is weaving or almost causes an accident, they usually have a phone in hand. The texting while driving problem is a much more ubiquitous (and deadly) one compared to drones and is not improving but rather getting worse. I have every expectation that drone rules will be almost as effective, considering that one in ten now own a Phantom.

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm not sure how mobile phone texting affects aviation law any more than any other. in the sense that there is commonly an element of getting away with it. The same also applies to drinking and driving, burglary and various other illegal activities. That doesn't stop them being against the law and there being a penalty if caught in the process.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Wendell Adkins

Or my personal favorite - worthless, half-assed laws that are all but unenforceable such as texting while driving. In most cases they are secondary offenses, ......

Unenforceable!? I don't think so! It was made an offence in it's own right in 2003 in the UK, and apparently since then about one million prosecutions have been made - Fines for using mobile phone while driving to increase to £90 | Money | theguardian.com

And no - all such regulations haven't stopped drink driving, texting behind the wheel or a host of other practices, but all the evidence is that they have REDUCED such behaviour, and there are many less accidents as a result.

Nothing I've written should be seen as "anti-drone", quite the opposite. But I do fear that the more examples of irresponsible usage come to light, the more draconian the reaction will be. The responsible users will pay the price for the irresponsible, if you like. And that's why I think (sensible) regulation is a good thing. It won't stop all the "stupid" stories, but is likely to limit them.

[Shaun Roemich]

Much like the "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign, I think RC Aircraft/quadcopter/octocopter/drone operators should start a "Remote pilots don't let remote pilots do incredibly asinine stuff that will likely cause the industry/hobby/pursuit to be destroyed by incompetence/stupidity/arrogance" campaign.

I'm seeing more and more video folk of ALL persuasions exhibiting sociopathic tendencies in terms of "getting the shot" with reckless disregard for anyone or anything.

Grow up.

Seriously. Stop the stupidity across the board.

Flying a device that runs on lithium cells into or close to fireworks???

Seriously???

Do you also play Russian Roulette for kicks?