Drone on Safely

[Beavah]

 

If a scout wanted to pack in a drone, I'd have the boys think long and hard about the LNT implications.

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

What do yeh think those are, exactly?

 

One of da interestin' things is that all of the local ordinances against drone flying aren't kosher and would never survive a challenge.  Federal aviation law & regulation pre-empts local ordinances and state statutes.  Yeh can't have every little borough publishin' different rules over the use of the skies.  Personally, I believe da locals should be honest about that and not do such silliness, which only opens 'em up to litigation.

 

I'm all for usin' photographic drones in da parks.   It sure beats helicopter photography, eh?    Also great for research, SAR, etc.  

 

If we don't do a better job of gettin' images of our majestic or just plain pretty wildlands out to the broader public who are campin' less and less, pretty soon we're not goin' to have a constituency strong enough to protect our open spaces from exploitation and development.  Bein' restrictive is, I reckon, an overly shortsighted approach.  

 

Yah, yah, I can keep my Old Guy registration card.  Let me see...  

 

"Darn newfangled gadgets!!  Makin' a buzzing noise for 10 minutes that partially obscures da racket of my bringing a herd of Boy Scouts into the woods!  How horrible!!     Better get my broom and chase 'em off just like those pesky kids who occasionally land one of those dang Frisbee disk things in my petunias! "

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-177139/Teenager-killed-hit-model-plane.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/nyregion/flying-model-aircraft-comes-under-scrutiny-after-fatal-accident-in-brooklyn-park.html?_r=0

 

http://gizmodo.com/a-swiss-man-was-killed-by-his-remote-controlled-helicop-777233761

 

It doesn't happen very often, but the more the number of RC units go into the air, the higher the ratio of potential death and injury can occur.

[Beavah]

One also has to take into consideration the flight of aircraft is done by a occupant pilot who is trained and licensed.  Even though they can fly over certain terrain, it is forbidden in some areas, i.e. military bases, Washington DC, and BWCA just to name a couple.  They must also maintain a MINIMUM flight so that if there is a problem they have time to react and set their aircraft down in a non-populated area if possible.

 

 

Yah, I'm a licensed pilot, eh?  Sure there are some restricted areas.  No, there is no required minimum altitude especially in remote areas.  I can feel free to buzz a field of crops to my heart's content (and lots of folks do to spray their crops).  Below 700 feet is uncontrolled airspace.

 

 

So now we have drones.  It's not new technology.  

 

Yah, it is.  Quadcopter drones aren't possible without high speed computing and sensing technology and microcontrollers.  It's the addition of the computer-assist that drastically improves da safety and "flyability" for the average person.  And it's the addition of small CCD cameras that have made drones interestin' to the general public.

 

 it makes sense to have the ground personnel be able to see the aircraft, be able to keep it under control, keep it out of piloted aircraft air space, etc. 

 

I have a number of friends who are RC hobbyists and fully realize it's not an issue of "modern technology".  They've been flying both rotary winged and fixed wing pilotless aircraft for many years.

 

 

Yah, I do that, too, eh?   All of us have multiple tales to tell of crashin' our model aircraft, especially rotorcraft.    Dang model helicopters are a pain to fly, and da hobby has had some spectacular fatalities with 'em.  RC model aircraft are heavier, faster moving, and much more hazardous.  Those are also remote controlled , eh?   So yeh have to see 'em to control 'em.  

 

Drones are onboard controlled by da processors on the aircraft which keep it under control and can be programmed to keep it out of certain airspace (though that's not really an issue 99.9% of the time).  They're also lighter weight, frangible, and slower moving.  Safer all-around, but definitely new technology.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't happen very often, but the more the number of RC units go into the air, the higher the ratio of potential death and injury can occur.

 

Yeh do realize that exactly the same argument can be made about kids goin' Scouting, right?     Scoutin' fatalities don't happen very often, but the more kids join Scoutin' and go camping, the greater the number of deaths and personal injuries can occur!

 

I still vote for liberty.

 

Beavah

Edited July 14, 2016 by Beavah

[NJCubScouter]

One of da interestin' things is that all of the local ordinances against drone flying aren't kosher and would never survive a challenge.  Federal aviation law & regulation pre-empts local ordinances and state statutes.  Yeh can't have every little borough publishin' different rules over the use of the skies.  Personally, I believe da locals should be honest about that and not do such silliness, which only opens 'em up to litigation.

Based on my fairly limited knowledge of aviation law, the best I can say is that you may be right to some degree. I have to say, though, that whenever I see another attorney making such an unqualified, assured statement about the outcome a legal issue that is still working its way through the courts (or maybe has not even gotten to courts, as I have not read of any lawsuits challenging such ordinances), all kinds of red flags start unfurling themselves. I have seen these kinds of statements turn out to be incorrect on more than one occasion. The fact is, we don't really know what the legal outcome will be. I can see the courts (or even the FAA, in which case the subject of pre-emeption would not even come up) allowing some local regulation. If, for example, 200 people want to use the same 1 acre of parkland to fly their drones around, or 500 people send their drones to take photos of the same thing at the same time, it isn't going to work. The drones are going to crash into each other, and you won't be able to take your dog for a walk in the park without taking a substantial risk that your dog, or yourself, will end up on the wrong end of one of the 200 drones that are flying around. It sounds like a subject tailor-made for local regulation to me, and I have my doubts that the FAA or the federal courts are even going to want to get involved, past a certain point. This isn't purely an aviation issue, it is also about normal everyday "traffic" that may come in conflict with those of us on the ground - as it already has. Just that one article Stosh cited about the guy who was killed by his own drone makes me think that there is going to have to be some regulation by somebody.

Edited July 14, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter]

Yeh do realize that exactly the same argument can be made about kids goin' Scouting, right?     Scoutin' fatalities don't happen very often, but the more kids join Scoutin' and go camping, the greater the number of deaths and personal injuries can occur!

Good example - but it defeats your argument. BSA has all kinds of safety regulations that affect camping, to try to minimize the injuries and fatalities that occur. This is what I was talking about regarding "balance" earlier. If you try to avoid ALL risk, you can't do anything, and that creates other types of risks.  But if you accept that a degree of risk is part of a worthwhile activity, you have the activity but take reasonable steps to minimize the risks. I think that is what the BSA tries to do. Do they always get it exactly right? No. But nobody always gets everything right. There's always room for improvement. Again, it's a balancing act.

Edited July 14, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[Beavah]

Good example - but it defeats your argument. BSA has all kinds of safety regulations that affect camping, to try to minimize the injuries and fatalities that occur. This is what I was talking about regarding "balance" earlier. If you try to avoid ALL risk, you can't do anything, and that creates other types of risks.  But if you accept that a degree of risk is part of a worthwhile activity, you have the activity but take reasonable steps to minimize the risks. I think that is what the BSA tries to do. Do they always get it exactly right? No. But nobody always gets everything right. There's always room for improvement. Again, it's a balancing act.

 

Nobody's suggestin' that there aren't competin' interests.  Of course there are!  I reckon that's just life in a society.  Not sure what safety issues we're talkin' about because there've been precious few drone accidents.  It's not yet clear what da risks are, or even if there are any.

 

Da BSA's approach to safety is not regulatory, though.  It's educational.  We teach folks how to do things safely, even dangerous things like watersports and cycling and startin' fires.  We publish guides to inform and educate, but we're not supervisin' or regulatin' local units.  If we did, then we would be liable for their actions, eh? 

 

Whenever a new thing comes to town, old things have to give way and make a bit of room for the new thing.  Bicycles, cars, skateboards, mopeds, hoverboards. Skiers have to make room for snowboarders.  Hikers for mountain bikers.  Map-and-compass curmudgeons like myself for GPS-geocachers.  Even old immigrants for new immigrants. 

 

It all creates some tensions and requires some re-negotiatin' of norms and courtesies.  Best to do that da way Scoutin' does it, with kindness, consideration, and education.

 

As for federal pre-emption of state and local statutes with respect to aviation, I'll stand pat.  These things are bogus.

 

Beavah

Edited July 14, 2016 by Beavah

[NJCubScouter]

As for federal pre-emption of state and local statutes with respect to aviation, I'll stand pat.  These things are bogus.

I'll be looking forward to reading your published decision on the matter, Judge.

[walk in the woods]

I think there is a balance to be struck between "fully participating in this century", and courtesy. I am not opining on where the balance should be struck where drones are concerned, because I don't really know anything about them. I have never had one intrude on my solitude or create a dangerous situation in my presence. Yet. But I think that as a society, we are still stuck in the mindset that "if it can be done, it should be done." And forget camping for a second. Do we really want a society where everywhere you turn there are things whizzing through the air delivering packages, spying on people to see what they are doing, etc.? And on that last example, we as a society are well on our way to giving up our last shred of privacy in the name of security, efficiency, etc. Is that what we want, just because the technology is there?

As a guy who lives on the flight path for O'Hare (well quite a ways out but still on the path), I can assure you the air is already full of machines whizzing around delivering packages .  That said, if using drones for deliveries takes delivery trucks off the roads are we really less safe?  As for privacy, that's easy, just ban the government from using drones......

 

If, for example, 200 people want to use the same 1 acre of parkland to fly their drones around, or 500 people send their drones to take photos of the same thing at the same time, it isn't going to work. The drones are going to crash into each other,

I'd argue the 200 or 500 drones problem is self-regulating.  People spend good money for the things they are unlikely to use them in a place where they could be damaged.  If we limit where they can be used it's more likely to cause problems, no?

[Stosh]

Stosh, on 14 Jul 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

One also has to take into consideration the flight of aircraft is done by a occupant pilot who is trained and licensed.  Even though they can fly over certain terrain, it is forbidden in some areas, i.e. military bases, Washington DC, and BWCA just to name a couple.  They must also maintain a MINIMUM flight so that if there is a problem they have time to react and set their aircraft down in a non-populated area if possible.

 

 

Yah, I'm a licensed pilot, eh?  Sure there are some restricted areas.  No, there is no required minimum altitude especially in remote areas.  I can feel free to buzz a field of crops to my heart's content (and lots of folks do to spray their crops).  Below 700 feet is uncontrolled airspace.

 

Which is fine and dandy until someone buzzes the field because they are curious as to what the bunch of boys are doing huddled in the field.  What would one of those drones do to the average prop?

 

Stosh, on 14 Jul 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

 

So now we have drones.  It's not new technology.  

 

Yah, it is.  Quadcopter drones aren't possible without high speed computing and sensing technology and microcontrollers.  It's the addition of the computer-assist that drastically improves da safety and "flyability" for the average person.  And it's the addition of small CCD cameras that have made drones interestin' to the general public.

 

RC planes have gone high tech with jet engines. Takes a highly skilled flier to keep it under control.  Most drone operators are extremely unskilled and the improvements in technology only makes up for a certain amount of skill.  One doesn't have to concentrate as much with a semi-self flying unit.  Lack of concentration is always a recipe for problems.

 

Stosh, on 14 Jul 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

 it makes sense to have the ground personnel be able to see the aircraft, be able to keep it under control, keep it out of piloted aircraft air space, etc. 

 

I have a number of friends who are RC hobbyists and fully realize it's not an issue of "modern technology".  They've been flying both rotary winged and fixed wing pilotless aircraft for many years.

 

 

Yah, I do that, too, eh?   All of us have multiple tales to tell of crashin' our model aircraft, especially rotorcraft.    Dang model helicopters are a pain to fly, and da hobby has had some spectacular fatalities with 'em.  RC model aircraft are heavier, faster moving, and much more hazardous.  Those are also remote controlled , eh?   So yeh have to see 'em to control 'em.  

 

Drones are onboard controlled by da processors on the aircraft which keep it under control and can be programmed to keep it out of certain airspace (though that's not really an issue 99.9% of the time).  They're also lighter weight, frangible, and slower moving.  Safer all-around, but definitely new technology.

 

Yes the drones tend to be light weight, but the break off point is 55#'s .  Let me see 2 pints to a quart, 4 quarts to a gallon 8#'s times 5 gallons equals 40#'s that means one can have 15# more than a 5 gallon water can come crashing down out of the sky and still be all legal and nice.  You know as well as I do, a small balsa wood .049 isn't going to be enough after a while..... There's always the next step.  

 

Kinda like kayaking the local lake.  Next it's gotta be the river, then the rapids, then the falls.   

 

 

Stosh, on 14 Jul 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

 

 

It doesn't happen very often, but the more the number of RC units go into the air, the higher the ratio of potential death and injury can occur.

 

Yeh do realize that exactly the same argument can be made about kids goin' Scouting, right?     Scoutin' fatalities don't happen very often, but the more kids join Scoutin' and go camping, the greater the number of deaths and personal injuries can occur!

 

I still vote for liberty.

 

Beavah

 

And a quality program of education and safety will keep the numbers down.  Letting them loose in the woods on their own is the same thing as heading down to the hobby shop, buying a drone and heading out with one's buddies to the nearest park.  Not quite a valid argument.

 

All I'm saying is if BSA is going to promote and allow this, they better bone up on education and hands on training to back it up.  I've always been surprised there is Rocketry MB, but no RC Aircraft MB.  I wonder what the rationale behind that is.

[Beavah]

 If, for example, 200 people want to use the same 1 acre of parkland to fly their drones around, or 500 people send their drones to take photos of the same thing at the same time, it isn't going to work.

 

Yah, not sure why yeh think da government needs to get involved in that, eh?  Do yeh really expect such silliness to happen?  Seems like worryin' about what happens if suddenly 500 people want to bicycle on da same 200 feet of sidewalk.  Ain't likely, and sometimes I reckon citizens can just work things out on their own.

 

 

 Just that one article Stosh cited about the guy who was killed by his own drone makes me think that there is going to have to be some regulation by somebody.

 

 Yah, because every time a lad falls out of a tree the government needs a new regulation about tree height, right? 

 

What @@Stosh posted was not modern drones, eh?  It was old RC model aircraft.  Like he says, those have been around for 50 years or so Despite all that time and da accidents mentioned, the sky hasn't fallen, 500 people aren't tryin' to take off and land from a 1-acre park, and da only regulations are da FAA model aircraft section, which is controlling.

 

Isn't any need to peddle fear, eh?  New stuff is normal.  In this case it's an improvement in both safety and utility.  We've got a couple of troops and one crew who are makin' regular use of drones.  Great stuff.  Teaches photography, aviation, electronics, digital/computer stuff.  And it's FUN.

 

Beavah

[TAHAWK]

As for people avoiding risky behavior with drones that cost "good money," that would be logical.  But H. Sap. is not always that way.  What does an "average" drone cost compared to an "average" motor vehicle?  How many of those get smashed each year becasue someone was reckless?  How about really expensive rides like the Porche that took Scott Walker to his death?   And I couldn't afford the Lamborghini that Justin Bieber was pushing 136 in a 25 zone. I fear we need education, rules and enforcement.

 

http://rochester.nydatabases.com/map/domestic-drone-accidents

[NJCubScouter]

Yah, not sure why yeh think da government needs to get involved in that, eh?

Maybe because I live in the real world and not in some extremist-libertarian/anarchist fantasy land. I see peoples' interests, needs, wants and desires come into conflict every day. Perhaps my perspective is influenced by the profession I (er, "we") have chosen. Perhaps it is influenced by the fact that I live in the most densely populated state in the country, where people just naturally tend to bump into each other, both figuratively and literally.

 

Do yeh really expect such silliness to happen?  Seems like worryin' about what happens if suddenly 500 people want to bicycle on da same 200 feet of sidewalk.

The numbers (mine and yours) are exaggerated. But conceptually, yes, I expect it to happen, it happens every day in other contexts. I have been in places where there were so many people making phone calls and texting on their smartphones in a confined space that the cell network (or whatever it was) basically gave up. (Full disclosure, this was at my son's graduation from Rutgers where I was in a stadium with 49,999 of my closest friends, so it was kind of an unusual situation. But it did happen.)

 

Ain't likely, and sometimes I reckon citizens can just work things out on their own.

Ain't likely? Some version of what I am talking about is virtually certain. As for the rest of it, I would move the word "sometimes" in the sentence. Sometimes citizens can work things out on their own. But sometimes they can't.

 

Yah, because every time a lad falls out of a tree the government needs a new regulation about tree height, right? 

 

The correct analogy would be if the next big fad were for people to start cutting down trees and launching them through the air and one hit a kid. Yes, there would be regulation of that. (Come to think of it, this tree-launching thing is not a new idea, I think the ancient Spartans, Persians, Romans and/or whoever did it, but it was for a different purpose.)

 

Isn't any need to peddle fear, eh?  New stuff is normal.

Yes, there is never any reason to fear anything new, Dr. Oppenheimer.

[Stosh]

Yah, not sure why yeh think da government needs to get involved in that, eh?  Do yeh really expect such silliness to happen?  Seems like worryin' about what happens if suddenly 500 people want to bicycle on da same 200 feet of sidewalk.  Ain't likely, and sometimes I reckon citizens can just work things out on their own.

 

Seriously???? A lawyer just said citizens can just work things out on their own?  I thought lawyers would get kicked off the bar for saying things like that!

 

Beavah

[TAHAWK]

Scots do tree launching, but under regulated and restricted conditions. 

 

(Also hammer-trowing and sheaf tossing.)

[vumbi]

In the spirit of working things out on my own, I actually have used these things a few times to get views that I simply can't get as easily any other way. That said, I always make sure I have permission to use over the property of whoever owns it below. And as for my own property, any of these things flying over my property without my permission will find themselves on the wrong end of a 12 gauge - or maybe tangled in the fishing lines I have strung to keep birds out of certain places.

Take 'em all out of the sky if they are over Vumbi land. Let the owners seek me out for the remains.

Edited July 15, 2016 by vumbi