Drone near miss at Heathrow

how much damage can a KG of drone cause (clue it has less genetic energy then a pigeon in flight)


Ask Enrique Iglesias.

I think it's a real shame that the actions of a few threaten the fun of many but also see that there needs to be some form of regulation covering the use of them. The fact that they're sold as toys doesn't really help, neither do the accidents such as the one that befell EI, although that one appears to have been his own fault (and an official drone.)
 
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...
There's respect for opinions, and there's intelligent assessment of the value of an opinion*.
So if my newsagent tells me that my terminally ill grandad will get better if he drinks green tea, and the Oncologist says he'll last 6 months at best but probably 3, I'll take the Oncologist.

If someone with a licence to fly drones has a different point of view to someone who's just reiterating mindless popular media, I also know who's opinion to 'respect'. ;)

My pet hate of modern life is that we've drilled into people that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But we don't follow that up with the obvious point that not all opinions are valid, equal or worth listening to. Follow that with a media that likes to create hysteria and we are risking filling the world with morons.
 
boyfalldown said:
how much damage can a KG of drone cause (clue it has less genetic energy then a pigeon in flight)
Click to expand...

So.......you'd be happy for me to hit you in the face with something weighing a kilo?

I choose this.....http://www.tooled-up.com/product/britool-325mm-engineers-riveting-hammer-1kg/181660/ and if you really want to get picky, instead of swinging it I'll drop it on you. But for that I get to add spinning carbon fibre blades.

If you want to enjoy the rest of your afternoon, I'd suggest not typing "drone injuries" into Google's image search ;)
 
Phil V said:
My pet hate of modern life is that we've drilled into people that everyone is entitled to an opinion. But we don't follow that up with the obvious point that not all opinions are valid, equal or worth listening to. Follow that with a media that likes to create hysteria and we are risking filling the world with morons.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm! Interesting viewpoint. So the best way of allying people's fears is not to persuade by reasoned argument but devalue their capacity to question by linking to media hype and implying a moronic bent. Yeah, that seems fair.
 
JonathanRyan said:
So.......you'd be happy for me to hit you in the face with something weighing a kilo?
Click to expand...

I never said I would....just pointing out that a kilo of DJI phantom at full tilt has less Kinetic energy then a Wood Pigeon at full tilt. ;).......(and Kites kill a surprising number of people world wide too, you can cause an injury to yourself with anything)
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
neither do the accidents such as the one that befell EI, although that one appears to have been his own fault (and an official drone.)
Click to expand...

you can't legislate against stupidity....
 
boyfalldown said:
I never said I would....just pointing out that a kilo of DJI phantom at full tilt has less Kinetic energy then a Wood Pigeon at full tilt. ;).......(and Kites kill a surprising number of people world wide too, you can cause an injury to yourself with anything)
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat unclear of the physics here and surprised at how much pigeons weigh. But, carbon fibre blades...... We all know Aeschylus was killed by a flying tortoise, right?

I can injure myself with anything I want. It's when somebody else injures me with something I start to worry.

[BTW I _think_ the number of kite deaths is so high because of some really scary dangerous kite fighting they do in India etc. And it's usually the razors they add to the strings rather than the actual kites.]
 
Carl Ayling said:
Hmmmm! Interesting viewpoint. So the best way of allying people's fears is not to persuade by reasoned argument but devalue their capacity to question by linking to media hype and implying a moronic bent. Yeah, that seems fair.
Click to expand...
That's not what I wrote, I'm all up for a reasoned debate, but I'm fond of fact based arguments made with understanding, I'm not a fan of media induced hyperbole.:)
 
JonathanRyan said:
I'm somewhat unclear of the physics here and surprised at how much pigeons weigh. But, carbon fibre blades...... We all know Aeschylus was killed by a flying tortoise, right?

I can injure myself with anything I want. It's when somebody else injures me with something I start to worry.

[BTW I _think_ the number of kite deaths is so high because of some really scary dangerous kite fighting they do in India etc. And it's usually the razors they add to the strings rather than the actual kites.]
Click to expand...


Wood pigeon - between 300 `&650 grams. Cruising flight speed 23 m/s(50 mph) (max double it)

DJI Phantom 1kg. Max flight speed 15 m/s..........

so can I, but theres lots of things out there to cause you injury too. Not all in your control. How many times has a drone even caused you personally mild concern?

(BTW Kite deaths occur lots of places, not just India. I think the last UK one a couple of years ago at Dunstable)
 
Today DJI launched their entry level aircraft. It costs £649. It's main competitor, the 3D Robotics Solo, costs over £900 (not including a gimbal or camera). That's a lot of money for those that insist on calling them toys isn't it?
I genuinely believe that the vast majority of buyers of these machines will be using them in a responsible way and not be wanting to risk their investment.
For some reason some here have succumbed to media hyperbole and fiction. This isn't the problem the Daily Mail would have you believe it is.
 
Bird v Drone,
My Gyr x Saker weighs in at 31oz, and has a normal "working speed" of around 40mph, this can easily double on a chase or stoop.
She will occasionally, playfully, clip me round the ear, with a wing tip, on a fly by ( top gun anyone? :D ) if she thinks its time for a "reward".
that stings briefly.

Had she meant it, and come in feet first, that would lacerate my ear / face, quite successfully.
I'm not sure that pigeon v drone is really a suitable comparison TBH.
 
boyfalldown said:
you can't legislate against stupidity....
Click to expand...

Indeed not!

Ricardodaforce said:
Today DJI launched their entry level aircraft. It costs £649. It's main competitor, the 3D Robotics Solo, costs over £900 (not including a gimbal or camera). That's a lot of money for those that insist on calling them toys isn't it?
I genuinely believe that the vast majority of buyers of these machines will be using them in a responsible way and not be wanting to risk their investment.
For some reason some here have succumbed to media hyperbole and fiction. This isn't the problem the Daily Mail would have you believe it is.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are some that are on the expensive side but there are also plenty available under £100... http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...y+drone+with+camera&sprefix=toy+dron,toys,150 (LOTS of other retailers available!) Well within pocket money grasp these days and even more so if christmas and birthday money is added to the pot (or even the toy is bought for the kid.)
 
That link returned nearly 4 million results on my iPhone.
Is a sub £100 drone going to have the range/height capability to create the kind of world ending Armageddon being alluded to in this thread?
 
boyfalldown said:
mmm sightly OOT comparison. So how many then? You don't need a licence for a hang glider either...are you worried about one falling on your head?
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with the sentiment Hugh, the main difference is that a hang glider pilot would be putting themselves in danger if they were getting close to me, the drone pilot could have my eye out whilst sat with a beer and a picnic.
 
World ending? I doubt it but such devices could easily cause a pile up if flown irresponsibly. Your point seemed to be that these things are too expensive to be toys, mine is that they clearly aren't!
 
Nod said:
World ending? I doubt it but such devices could easily cause a pile up if flown irresponsibly. Your point seemed to be that these things are too expensive to be toys, mine is that they clearly aren't!
Click to expand...


But a tennis ball or catapult are probably more likely to cause a pile up.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment Hugh, the main difference is that a hang glider pilot would be putting themselves in danger if they were getting close to me, the drone pilot could have my eye out whilst sat with a beer and a picnic.
Click to expand...


My point really was you don't need a licence or training to fly either ( although you be reall stupid not to have any training)
 
boyfalldown said:
mmm sightly OOT comparison. So how many then? You don't need a licence for a hang glider either...are you worried about one falling on your head?
Click to expand...

Hang glider? Nope - I don't often see those round here. But drones are getting pretty common at events. They pretty much always worry me.
 
So the proposal is to ban a kg of drone because of the infinitesimal risk? But we're all happy to walk/drive around 26t of bin truck? We really need to do some personal risk assessments ...
 
boyfalldown said:
So what would be your solution then?
Click to expand...

Remove cameras from all drones unless you have a (relatively easy to get, fairly cheap) certificate of competency in flying them.

People fly drones to have fun and that's cool. But having cameras in them appears to let/encourage them do stupid things. So.....you can only fly a drone with a camera if you've had a couple of hours training and education in the risks*. And that permit can be revoked if you do something stupid.

ATM clients often ask me to do drone photography. I quote them a fairly hefty sum since the cheapest/easiest legal way to do it is to hire somebody who knows what they are doing. They then say "oh, but my mate has a drone and he said he'd do it for 6 cans of Tenants Super". It's current legal for any muppet to do this but illegal for me to do it because I take pictures for a living. That seems silly and a little unfair.

* I've no idea if a couple of hours would cover it but it would mostly be about not hurting other people/crashing planes/damaging Stone Henge. You'd be free to crash them into non valuable inanimate objects all you like.
 
steveo_mcg said:
So the proposal is to ban a kg of drone because of the infinitesimal risk? But we're all happy to walk/drive around 26t of bin truck? We really need to do some personal risk assessments ...
Click to expand...

Nope. We require people who drive bin lorries (or any vehicle) to undergo training and testing in their competency before they are allowed into a situation that would endanger others. Where they have shown that they can't be trusted (speeding, drinking etc) they get this permission revoked. Occasionally this system fails (because idiots) but it doesn't mean it's not necessary.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Remove cameras from all drones unless you have a (relatively easy to get, fairly cheap) certificate of competency in flying them.

People fly drones to have fun and that's cool. But having cameras in them appears to let/encourage them do stupid things. So.....you can only fly a drone with a camera if you've had a couple of hours training and education in the risks*. And that permit can be revoked if you do something stupid.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty close to what I've said all along......a simple proportionate licence. The knowledge of airlaw you need for one of these ain't complex
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Nope. We require people who drive bin lorries (or any vehicle) to undergo training and testing in their competency before they are allowed into a situation that would endanger others. Where they have shown that they can't be trusted (speeding, drinking etc) they get this permission revoked. Occasionally this system fails (because idiots) but it doesn't mean it's not necessary.
Click to expand...

And this requirement has come about because the size of the vehicles being used became larger, the speed they were capable off outpaced human ability to safely control them (every time) and volumes of them became such that there were many that people were being injured and killed by them.

The licence system followed a logical risk assessment, these (auto-mobiles) vehicles presented a demonstrable risk so were licensed. I see no real risk with drones (at the moment), certainly not the kind of risk that would require the administrative burden of a likely toothless licencing system. When drones weight 1000kg and can travel at 40mph and there are 1 for every 200 people in the UK we'll talk.
 
Yes, yes there are a few isolated incidents of people being injured by people using these thing inappropriately across the whole world. 1500 people are killed in the UK every year on the heavily regulated roads most of these incidents involve licensed, insured, trained individuals. Drones are not in any way in the same league as autos, they're not even in the same league as guns (in the UK).
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
ATM clients often ask me to do drone photography. I quote them a fairly hefty sum since the cheapest/easiest legal way to do it is to hire somebody who knows what they are doing. They then say "oh, but my mate has a drone and he said he'd do it for 6 cans of Tenants Super". It's current legal for any muppet to do this but illegal for me to do it because I take pictures for a living. That seems silly and a little unfair.
Click to expand...


It's actually ILLEGAL for said muppet to do that unless he has a CAA issued Permission For Aerial Work.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
It's actually ILLEGAL for said muppet to do that unless he has a CAA issued Permission For Aerial Work.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, I know someone that regularly does site surveys with a drone,
I'd be very surprised if he was licensed or indeed knew that you have to be/ have a permit.
Next time he starts bragging, I'll ask him ;)
 
Cobra said:
That's interesting, I know someone that regularly does site surveys with a drone,
I'd be very surprised if he was licensed or indeed knew that you have to be/ have a permit.
Next time he starts bragging, I'll ask him ;)
Click to expand...

ALL commercial aerial work can only legally be undertaken by a holder of a PFAW.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
It's actually ILLEGAL for said muppet to do that unless he has a CAA issued Permission For Aerial Work.
Click to expand...

Is it?

I know it's legal to fly a drone and take pictures on an amateur basis (or at least I think it is). What's the definition of aerial "work" here?
 
JonathanRyan said:
Is it?

I know it's legal to fly a drone and take pictures on an amateur basis (or at least I think it is). What's the definition of aerial "work" here?
Click to expand...


Yes, for any commercial work. It is legal to take pictures from one on an amateur basis assuming you comply with all the other rules
 
JonathanRyan said:
Is it?

I know it's legal to fly a drone and take pictures on an amateur basis (or at least I think it is). What's the definition of aerial "work" here?
Click to expand...


This is the problem with this thread. People just don't know the rule. There is a definition on the CAA website of what constitutes commercial operations. The example you gave was clear. An exchange of work for some financial recompense. Illegal unless the pilot is in possession of a PFAW.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
This is the problem with this thread. People just don't know the rule. There is a definition on the CAA website of what constitutes commercial operations. The example you gave was clear. An exchange of work for some financial recompense. Illegal unless the pilot is in possession of a PFAW.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that rule. What I don't understand (and my "clients" are wilfully ignoring) is at what point it becomes commercial work. Is it purely the recompense? So if they claimed they did it for fun and coincidentally had a couple of free drinks at the bar (because mates) are they in the clear? Because people seem to genuinely believe this is alright even when I explain to them why I won't do something similar.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I'm aware of that rule. What I don't understand (and my "clients" are wilfully ignoring) is at what point it becomes commercial work. Is it purely the recompense? So if they claimed they did it for fun and coincidentally had a couple of free drinks at the bar (because mates) are they in the clear? Because people seem to genuinely believe this is alright even when I explain to them why I won't do something similar.
Click to expand...

That's aerial work in exchange for something. It's commercial 100%. According to the CAA if they "fly the aircraft on a commercial basis (i.e. conducting ‘aerial work’)" they have to have a PFAW or they are operating illegally.
 
What if they did it on amateur basis for their own use only but at a later date were offered payment for use of the video?

That's what makes the licencing for commercial use only complete nonsense.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
What if they did it on amateur basis for their own use only but at a later date were offered payment for use of the video?

That's what makes the licencing for commercial use only complete nonsense.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Well to start with there is no licensing at all as I keep pointing out.

What you describe is a commercial transaction clearly. It's not confusing at all. Unless they had a PFAW they would not be able to charge. In fact I was in exactly the same position when someone offered to buy some footage of mine a few months ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top