The New York Times has picked up on the theme we were discussing last week, of amateurs using UAVs (or FPV aircraft) to monitor police activity at protests.
An important point raised in the article:
Despite the quality of the images, though, RoboKopter might not see a rush of orders from newsrooms just yet.
One reason is that while there is no doubt that similar aerial videos of the Occupy Wall Street protests would have gotten widespread airplay on American television this week, it is unlikely that the New York Police Department, which closed the airspace above Lower Manhattan during Tuesday’s raid, would have taken kindly to a flock of drone journalists.
Comments
@marc I think one point is that if a motor stops then the craft will drop out of the sky. Maybe we need triple redundancy, protected props and reliability over a long period before we can fly over people. Right now, it is possible to use large zooms from the roof of buildings to get the same visibility in a safer way. If one copter is allowed then what is to prevent two? If two or more then we will also need a good collision avoidance system.
The police should be able to close air space when they feel that they, or demonstrators, might be harmed. After all, there are so many cameras everywhere these days I doubt that they closed it for privacy reasons.
Well Marc, if all laws are followed, then there's no issue from a legal standpoint. I don't agree with breaking laws because they are inconvenient. If the law is unjust, that's another story.
But, getting a stable zoomed image from that distance poses technical issues, like camera stabilization. However, whatever type of drone you're using if the craft is flying above the crowd, and you loose control then you are liable for any injuries or damages. If you want to take that kind of risk with other people's safety for the sake of taking some pictures, then it's your choice, but don't expect to hide behind any kind civil liberty defence.
@Ellison Chan:
My argument is simply that to maintain a "civil society" it is sometimes necessary to break inconvenient laws. As a licensed pilot and aircraft owner, I also know the difference between a Federal Aviation Regulation and an Advisory Circular. I do know there are good reasons to voluntarily refrain from flying a multicopter over a crowd, but multicopters are not the only type of drone. If, on an amateur basis, a small camera equipped flapping wing or LTA drone in compliance with AC 91-57 is being safely flown, say, 30m above a crowd, please tell me exactly what laws are being broken? And, I'll again ask the question that was missed at the beginning of the thread, exactly what jurisdiction does the NYPD have that permits them to (as they reportedly done) close any airspace?
As been discussed to death previously, the right to fly a multirotor into a crowd carrying a camera over police lines, is not a civil liberty issue. Yes, there are clear FAA rules regarding size and of model aircraft, and when they need to be licensed.
In a civil society we can't make laws, and break them whenever it becomes inconvenient to us.
Sadly, you must have missed school the day they discussed Letter from a Birmingham Jail or even the very founding of this country. Here's a more technical issue: should a camera equipped flapping wing drone weighs a few ounces be subject to the same regulations as something the size of a Predator?
@Marc Ramsey
Indeed, Drone Journalism has its uses, but that doesn't mean we need to break laws.
For instance, with a zoom lens, a drone can hover well away from crowds and outside police lines, and still be able to take the pictures needed. In a civil society we can't make laws, and break them whenever it becomes inconvenient to us.
mabe [sic] there is a bit of both here, police need to relax a bit, journalists need to stay out of the way and students need to move on after making their points and when asked to do so
We're moving way off topic for this site, but had journalists, students, and protesters in general, taken your suggestion seriously during my own lifetime, many citizens of the US, including myself, would still be subject to state enforced segregation in a significant portion of this country. Protest can not convenient. Read the 1st amendment and tell us where it says that we need to have government permission to assemble and express opinions, or disperse when asked. The 2nd amendment isn't the only one that counts.
We need citizen and journalist controlled drones, even if the government finds it inconvenient. That is why a lot of us are here...
mabe there is a bit of both here, police need to relax a bit, journalists need to stay out of the way and students need to move on after making their points and when asked to do so
@Bart, Re: #2. Drones flying overhead is only a small problem compared to other questions that have been raised:
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2011/remotecontrolwar/
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next