Drone near miss at Heathrow

Ricardodaforce said:
To help them I do think the flight control software shouldn't allow flight that breaks those rules,
Click to expand...

I think if you do that keeping it up to date becomes an issue. As a quick example there is an RC club at Hanworth, about a mile from Heathrow. It falls within the latest DJI no fly zones, but you can perfectly ;legitimately fly there under an agreement between the modellers and Heathrow ATC
 
Pookeyhead said:
What? You've done nothing but reply to every post I've made with comments about how licensing will not stop people using them irresponsibly... LOL That's been my standpoint from the first post I made in this thread: That they should be licensed and an exam needs to be taken.


You OK? You been drinking?
Click to expand...


A prohibitively expensive exam if I remember. Not a simple proportionate one. You also seem to think they're unregulated when they ain't.....And I don't think licensing alone will stop people being dicks with them, same as a driving licence doesn't stop people being dicks

Not yet, but I'll have whatever your on. Although I assume its neat meths as reading seems a little hard so I guess its affected your eyes?. Maybe I'll pass on that
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
A prohibitively expensive exam if I remember. Not a simple proportionate one. You also seem to think they're unregulated when they ain't.....

Not yet, but I'll have whatever your on. Although I assume its neat meths as reading seems a little hard so I guess its affected your eyes?. Maybe I'll pass on that
Click to expand...

I never made one comment regarding what kind of exam, or how much it would cost. Can you find where I said that, because I can't seem to find it.
 
boyfalldown said:
I think if you do that keeping it up to date becomes an issue. As a quick example there is an RC club at Hanworth, about a mile from Heathrow. It falls within the latest DJI no fly zones, but you can perfectly ;legitimately fly there under an agreement between the modellers and Heathrow ATC
Click to expand...

Was specifically thinking of height and distance. But your point is valid.
 
boyfalldown said:
post number 23.
Click to expand...

I never attached a price figure, or said what the exam entails. Just price it high enough to make someone think "Can I be arsed" is all. Many would say the driving exam is a "high" cost, but it's not really. The main reason for licensing is accountability and the ability to revoke that license should you infringe it's conditions, as that then opens up the possibility of further fining and a whole host of other reasons to prosecute.

This idea of existing regulations is simply a joke. How many people who buy a DJI Phantom have read them? Does the product come with those regulations printed on the manual? (genuine question.. I've no idea). I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. Regulations can only stop breaking of those regulations if you know they exist in the first place. Currently... it's not really regulated at all. It relies solely on voluntary acceptance of those regulations, and there seems to be nothing that educates the user on these regulations. It relies on the user seeking out the information and voluntarily agreeing to them. An exam ON those regulations is clearly needed, even if it's just a multiple choice farce such as the driving theory test. At least people WILL read those regulations before going for the exam.
 
Last edited:
The DJI products to have a rules leaflet in the box. I have no idea what other manufacturers do.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The DJI products to have a rules leaflet in the box. I have no idea what other manufacturers do.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see that then. I also wonder how many people just see that and think, "yeah yeah...." and just basically ignore them.

Doesn't seem like a very effective way to regulate their use if you ask me.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm curious to see that then. I also wonder how many people just see that and think, "yeah yeah...." and just basically ignore them.

Doesn't seem like a very effective way to regulate their use if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Well the reality is that incidents involving these things really are few and far between, so rather than take a cynical point of view, why not assume that most buyers are being responsible?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Well the reality is that incidents involving these things really are few and far between, so rather than take a cynical point of view, why not assume that most buyers are being responsible?
Click to expand...

Because of the potential for serious harm to be done. Most drivers drive responsibly; most gun owners are completely responsible too. However, it's clear that the actions of the minority that do not use these things responsibly, in these instances, outweigh those that do.

Simple as that really.

I've not yet heard a reasonable argument against licensing their use. It won't stop anyone using one - they'll just have to pass an exam, and obtain a license. This whole "licenses don't stop drivers being stupid" argument is childish, and not really based on logic. Why even say it? What is someone that says that suggesting: We should abolish the driving test and license system because it doesn't work? Really?

I really wish people would think their arguments through.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Because of the potential for serious harm to be done. Most drivers drive responsibly; most gun owners are completely responsible too. However, it's clear that the actions of the minority that do not use these things responsibly, in these instances, outweigh those that do.

Simple as that really.

I've not yet heard a reasonable argument against licensing their use. It won't stop anyone using one - they'll just have to pass an exam, and obtain a license. This whole "licenses don't stop drivers being stupid" argument is childish, and not really based on logic. Why even say it? What is someone that says that suggesting: We should abolish the driving test and license system because it doesn't work? Really?

I really wish people would think their arguments through.
Click to expand...

You have convinced yourself most drone operators are irresponsible and that's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind.
Have an awesome day.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You have convinced yourself most drone operators are irresponsible and that's fine. I'm not interested in changing your mind.
Have an awesome day.
Click to expand...


I haven't at all. You have no idea what I think as I've never expressed that opinion. You've convinced yourself that's what I think, and that's fine :)

For the record, I'm certain that the vast majority of drone operators are utterly sensible. However, I'm convinced there will be a small minority that are not, and so long as that is the case, we need an exam, and licensing. Just as we do with cars, even though most drivers are responsible.

p.s. I always have an awesome day. Due mostly to not really giving a **** about what people think. I highly recommend this.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
shotgun , problem solved
Click to expand...

Have you been in Kentucky recently? ;)

Kentucky Man Arrested After Shooting Down Camera Drone with Shotgun

A man in Kentucky was arrested this past Sunday after he used a shotgun to shoot down a camera drone flying over his property. He’s being charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment, both of which are felonies.
Click to expand...

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/31/kentucky-man-arrested-after-shooting-down-camera-drone-with-shotgun/
 
Something that can be used to impinge on privacy, cause damage and potentially endanger safety should be subjected to a license without question. May not stop mis-use but will help minimise.
 
Carl Ayling said:
Yes for privacy not so danger as they tend to be tethered (unlike drones) and certainly not endanger safety (unless used as a missile).
Click to expand...


So privacy is a strange argument for a photographer. It seems there is a lot of alarmist nonsense spoken in the press about these. The majority weigh a kg or less....missile indeed
 
I am very respectful of privacy so "people" shots tend to be confined to family and friends. Even a kg from height with camera and whirring props is not something I would relish falling from height. Besides, I am conscious of the reported actual incidents of near misses (Heathrow a recent example) let alone the Kentucky report - see above, and all those to my mind cry out for some form of management. My view and I suspect (by do not know) the majority view.
 
Carl Ayling said:
I am very respectful of privacy so "people" shots tend to be confined to family and friends. Even a kg from height with camera and whirring props is not something I would relish falling from height. Besides, I am conscious of the reported actual incidents of near misses (Heathrow a recent example) let alone the Kentucky report - see above, and all those to my mind cry out for some form of management. My view and I suspect (by do not know) the majority view.
Click to expand...

The Heathrow one wasn't a drone. The Kentucky guy was lying as demonstrated by the telemetry. That's why he's been charged.
 
Carl Ayling said:
I am very respectful of privacy so "people" shots tend to be confined to family and friends. Even a kg from height with camera and whirring props is not something I would relish falling from height. Besides, I am conscious of the reported actual incidents of near misses (Heathrow a recent example) let alone the Kentucky report - see above, and all those to my mind cry out for some form of management. My view and I suspect (by do not know) the majority view.
Click to expand...

The Heathrow one wasn't a drone. The Kentucky guy was lying as demonstrated by the telemetry. That's why he's been charged.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The Heathrow one wasn't a drone.
Click to expand...
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. It was a remotely controlled aerial vehicle. What is the difference between that and a drone?
 
StewartR said:
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. It was a remotely controlled aerial vehicle. What is the difference between that and a drone?
Click to expand...


Had this being descirbed by the BBC (accurately) as an rc helicopter then would you be taking the same viewpoint? Ask a modeller what the difference is
 
Carl Ayling said:
I am very respectful of privacy so "people" shots tend to be confined to family and friends. Even a kg from height with camera and whirring props is not something I would relish falling from height. Besides, I am conscious of the reported actual incidents of near misses (Heathrow a recent example) let alone the Kentucky report - see above, and all those to my mind cry out for some form of management. My view and I suspect (by do not know) the majority view.
Click to expand...


Some form of management like the existing legislation you mean? I'd agree some sort of licence to ensure an appropriate understanding of them. You did know there is existing legislation for model aircraft?
 
If the existing legislation does not include for users to be fully trained and licensed then it doesn't go far enough. This is a growing trend and must be managed properly or it will get out of hand very quickly and potentially cause a great deal of upset to many people. Having self-propelled equipment operating at heights with the potential to be used and abused to the detriment of others, must not be allowed without some measure of control.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carl Ayling said:
If the existing legislation does not include for users to be fully trained and licensed then it doesn't go far enough. This is a growing trend and must be managed properly or it will get out of hand very quickly and potentially cause a great deal of upset to many people. Having self-propelled equipment operating at heights with the potential to be used and abused to the detriment of others, must not be allowed without some measure of control.
Click to expand...


And who many drone users, to date, have worried you personally?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The Kentucky guy was lying as demonstrated by the telemetry. That's why he's been charged.
Click to expand...

I've read a report somewhere suggesting the Kentucky droner has used edited telemetry, I'll try and find the report again, but from what I recall, if the telemetry was correct the shooter must have been a gold medal Olympian with superpowers as he hit the drone traveling away from him at full speed and outside of birdshot range at the time it was hit.

It seems both shooter and droner in that case might have been telling some porkies.
 
boyfalldown said:
so do you think a non hysterical conversation without the hyperbole and coming from a position of knowledge may be better?
Click to expand...
In addition to intellectual discussion, foresight and logic also would be helpful .... plus a need to be respectful of others opinions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carl Ayling said:
In addition to intellectual discussion, foresight and logic also would be helpful .... plus a need to be respectful of others opinions.
Click to expand...

But that would depend on them

a) being correct,

&

b) not hysterical.

I agree there is a need for a licience that ensures an understanding of the relevant legislation and how to operate properly. However comments like "it will get out of hand very quickly and potentially cause a great deal of upset to many people" and "can be used to impinge on privacy, cause damage and potentially endanger safety" are nothing more the hysterics worthy of 1990's watchdog.

To date more people have been killed by kites then drones, how much damage can a KG of drone cause (clue it has less genetic energy then a pigeon in flight)
 
Last edited:
I'm not being hysterical about it really Hugh just recognising peoples fears and concerns which are close to what/how I've stated so I do stand by those comments. You don't have to agree with them - I'm not asking you to. They are simply recording what is out there. These forums are great and offer outlets for differing views - dread the day that people are hesitant of expressing an alternate view for fear of being criticised for their POV let alone the manner in which they express themselves or unless/until they have direct experience. The fact we agree on the need for a licensing system is good enough for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carl Ayling said:
I'm not being hysterical about it really Hugh just recognising peoples fears and concerns which are close to what/how I've stated so I do stand by those comments. You don't have to agree with them - I'm not asking you to. They are simply recording what is out there. These forums are great and offer outlets for differing views - dread the day that people are hesitant of expressing an alternate view for fear of being pilloried for their POV let alone the manner in which they express themselves or unless/until they have direct experience. The fact we agree on the need for a licensing system is good enough for me.
Click to expand...

I get and understand what your saying./ To a large point I agree with it too. (this post, not some of the drone stuff)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top