Guys, stop buying and flying quads when you don't know what you are doing. Especially over crowds or populated areas. This should be common sense.
RAW video link - http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=9270819
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Again, I am not trying to say this means everyone should fly however they see fit. I am saying mitigating risks can help.
Smaller, lighter aircraft is one way to help mitigate risk.
Brent, I wonder if, in the early days of cars, people said, very few people will ever have a stake in those machines. What is to say people won't find uses for UAS that we haven't really given thought to yet? As the technology becomes cheaper and more available, I think we will see more people flying these. As example, I have a friend who likes the idea of a follow me feature on a quad to film him while he water skis. I have another friend curious about using then in deer hunting. These are people not really INTO the hobby. They are just people I interact with who are curious about the technology, and what it could do for them.
I read once that there was the thinking at one point that only maybe a few dozen computers would ever be needed in the world. I type this on my pocketable computer called a smartphone.
The comparison with cars is pretty silly and we should really drop that one. A few reasons-- there are untold millions of cars in existence; cars have enormous utility both to the economy as a whole, and for most individuals. Next to their homes, many people's largest investment is their automobile. Basically: most people are stakeholders in the existence of cars.
That will never, ever be true of UAVs. 99% of the population will have no stake in the life or death of UAVs and the UAV industry. In fact, most people will have a negative stake, in that their interaction with these devices will harbor an undercurrent of suspicion, distrust and privacy concerns. Yeah, there'll be a certain number of companies as stakeholders in the success of UAVs, but IMHO nowhere near the wildly optimistic projections of the drone lobby (70,000+ jobs? hmm.). AUVSI is still a shadow of other trade aerospace trade organizations. And if it were up to the 'big guys', small UAVs (which are far outside their biz models) are an irrelevant nuisance.
In short, there're few in the public sphere on the side of UAVs besides the UAV operators themselves.
Are cars dangerous? Absolutely. Is the likelihood of death, injury or damage higher from cars than UAVs? No question yes. But society makes these balancing-act choices between what it will tolerate in the name of public safety and other social concerns, and cars decidedly make the grade. Can the same be said for UAVs? Even if the perception of danger is greater than reality, the perception is all that matters when it comes to influencing public opinion and making laws.
So yeah, let's bury that 'car' thing, it's really apples and oranges.
I didn't say they are not dangerous at all. I said they (Phantoms) are not really that much more dangerous than all the other hazards you are exposed to while standing on a sidewalk in NY.
The fact that the FAA has made it illegal to fly over crowds is not evidence that airplanes are more dangerous than cars. It's just that the FAA maintains a much tighter control over safety. If the FAA was responsible for car safety, we wouldn't be allowed to drive near sidewalks either.
Yeah --- missed point. I apologize. I got caught thinking about the situation and did not stay with R.L.'s full intent and comments.
A point to make though about the use of the word and concept of 'Perception'. The perception that flying these things over crowds is dangerous is actually not just a perception but, Truth/Fact. These ARE dangerous, unreliable and prone to many failures or interferences. Some of those types of reasons are why it is illegal to fly private aircraft directly over crowds and sport aircraft too.
As to outcry to ban drones. I've seen a constant outcry ALL year long, getting louder, in favor of drones being banned. It seems more frequently in the news, blogs, or each time I mention a quadcopter or such to we urbanites and suburbanites around here in the Mid-Atlantic (East, US) someone comes back quick with a derogatory comment regarding banning them. Next, a discussion of there being no valid use for them followed by suggesting initiating a drone season and shooting them. These are doctors, lawyers, bankers, Univ. Profs and such.
Cars? After thought. They would still emerge and be driven by many.
Micro-quads? Yeah! It's all fun and games until someone looses an eye. Got one ----- micro quad that is. ;-)
Make them/UAVs smarter so that idiots can fly??!! Now that is one reason I never thought/heard of !!
What are you flying? :)
Users will always be idiots. Look at the damage a drunk driver can do. Education is one part but another part of the answer to this is to make drones smarter about collision detection and make it easier for joe public to fly them safely.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." , ya , I like that. :)
Of course when most people break a $1000 toy they do one of two things.
They put the broken bits (they can find) in the box and look for a new toy.
Or they put those bits back together and resolve not to break it again (too often) and it becomes a hobby they treat with more respect.
It's possible that we will see a big growth in the hobby with benefits such as more choice and lower prices, more friends and more social events.
We just have to survive the idiots.
Self governance has it's appeal, but it's not going to happen unless someone actually steps up and takes the lead. The trouble is that having people out front often disintegrates into ugly politics.
Just for the fun of injecting a little philosophical musings...
John Stuart Mills:
And US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' colorful paraphrase:
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 12 Next