Good New York Times round-up of recent examples and some of the policy issues presented by "drone journalism". Excerpt:
The best way to film the destruction wrought by Typhoon Haiyan in Tacloban, the Philippines, said Lewis Whyld, a British photographer, was from the air.
But Mr. Whyld did not want to beg for a ride on a military helicopter, taking the space of much-needed aid. So he launched a drone into the skies above the city. In addition to shots that showed the scale of the damage, broadcast by CNN recently, his drone discovered two bodies that were later recovered by the authorities, he said in an interview.
“The newspaper was for still images,” said Mr. Whyld, who builds his own drones, “but the Internet is for this.”
Mr. Whyld, and CNN, are not alone in exploring the potential of drones. The Associated Press and News Corporation have used them to show the scale of large disasters. News Corporation has also used them to shoot sports in Australia. Sophisticated nature documentaries use them to get intimate shots of wildlife. Paparazzi use them to chase celebrities in Europe, and reports suggest they have been used to pursue celebrities in the United States, too....
Journalism programs, including those at the University of Missouri and the University of Nebraska, and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, have started drone journalism courses. Columbia does not teach hands-on skills, but students at Missouri have used drones over the Missouri River for a report about hydraulic fracturing and over the prairie for a story about controlled burns. But in August, the F.A.A. ordered journalism schools to stop flights unless they obtained permission from the agency.
Comments
Just ran across this.
Great example of the cowboy attitude of some pilots. Let's assume that the pilot would have no way of knowing there was a tow-line being used. Does it make sense that an airplane pilot would think that flying that close to a parachute was safe?
This type of thing is why I agree that integrating UAV's into the airspace is a problem. But it's not always the UAV's fault.
So who's controlling the geese?
Yes, he should be flying low and slow in order to stay safe over plains 50km wide like in Poland, Holland, Texas, wherever. Particularly in disaster zone transporting injured victim. EC135 has 230km/h economical speed and there is nothing wrong flying at 400ft AGl for the last 2 kilometers before touchdown. At the same time you can descend you UAV some 50m what amounts for maybe 150ft since the moment you can itdentify there is a danger of collision. I am telling you what I have withenssed durign real life so please stop arguing abour 25% of the value, because those numbers don't stick together: it is vasry hard to avoid fast flying silent medevac helicopter with fenestron style tail rotor with typical UAV that has some 15m/s cruise speed and 5m/s descent rate, this is the reality. The only solution appears to get very low immediately you hear a helicopter near you before you start thinking the direction it is flying. This simple solution, however, limits operation nears cities and pracically makes it impossible in danger zone unless there is contact with ATC, NOTAMS etc.
It was a two part question. Under 400 feet and over 240 km/h.
If so, it really seems to me that the potential for collision with a small UAV is a very small increased risk compared to that which the pilot is already placing himself in.
Laws and customs vary greatly by country, Spanish fire fighting planes seem to have simple right of way over everything including swimmers and row boats (paddle fast to get out of way).
But in the US normal aicraft operate at over 500 feet under normal circumstances.
Of course emergency operations at disaster sites are NOT normal and usually operate within a temporary restricted zone within which all aircraft are expected to be under direct control of emergency planners.
Whether it is a helicopter and a Quadcopter or 2 full sized helicopters, the potential for disaster is high.
And I suppose it is understandable when they get a bit testy seeing videos take from uncontrolled and unauthorized aircraft.
I have witnessed twice EC135 flying at 200m AGL +/- 50m what is something like 600ft. I know that because I have accounted well over 1000 UAV flights at exactly 200m and saw a few times cropdusters (or rather mosquitodusters) coming below so I can judge that altitude. It is not unreasonable to imagine medevac helo coming lower in disaser zone just before landing what might be 1km away.
If you are that amazed of the technology we use regularly in Eastern Europe, come visit us. It is spectacular to see.
No, absolutely not. They are designed for geese. IIRC, that airplane that landed in the Hudson flew through a flock of geese.
So these helicopters fly at 240 km/h below 400 feet? Really?
I'd like to experience that for myself. Though even if what you say is true, 10-15 seconds is still plenty of time to get down."
You don't get that 10-15s because with that advance you only know it is somewhere around in the distance of 1km (AT MOST!) if it is particularly audible. Before you are sure it is heading on you, you get only 5s advance. So far withnessed it mostly at 200-300m AGL in Poland but nothing says it must fly that high over flatland during emergency, flooding etc. Untill you witness it once, you are not even sure how fast it goes. In 10s in manual mode, you can lose altitude at around 5m/s. This is 50m only, if you were at 200m AGL it becomes 150m AGL yet you are not sure by eye of the real helicopter altitude and that rate of descent is already at stress limits of the UAV itself. So you have to take your decision if you merely hear a helicopter around you. The problem is, when there is flooding, there is always some sort of helicopter nearby. One could be masking acoustically another.
Yep, exactly. You can do a lot of useful things with a UAV even at 50-100 feet. And if you're flying a manned aircraft at "treetop level", you're already choosing to risk your life greatly. The potential presence of a UAV at your altitude is only a very minor increased risk compared to CFIT.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next