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
@Ellison, I was wondering the same thing, if we are living in the same country. Yes, people are now able to film police activities, but only after that right was backed up by the courts. The police attempted to create their own laws, as they often do, and might do again in this case with "Drone Journalism". They will say that it is illegal for some trumped up reason, and prevent people from doing it, until somebody with enough money fights them in court.
The more relevant discussion is, how often do videos lead to effective prosecution of the police? How many police officers served time for the murder of Robert Dziekański? None. One of them went on to commit Impaired Driving Causing Death, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Obstruction of Justice. He didn't perform CPR on Robert Dziekanski, nor render aid to Orion Hutchison. He is still suspended with pay.
These guys absolutely need watching.
Ellison Chan, please note a direct connection between the safety of a drone and of the people directly beneath it. This is why I mentioned it.
This is turning into one of the usual safety discussions threads you find on rcgroups, so I will say my standard party line and then be done with this thread..
"Stupid people will continue to do stupid things, regardless of the number of laws or rules put in place."
I hope that despite the complaints of some members, who appear to set themselves up as judge, jury and self imposed censor, that posts such as this will continue to be allowed, so that we are all allowed to use our own judgement as to the content, the implications of the content; and that we continue to be allowed to comment on the content of posts and do not fall into the trap of making unfounded assumptions, moralise or be judgemental of the poster.
Come Robert, do we live in the same country? Just do a quick youtube search on "Vancouver riot", you can see how many people "got away" with shooting videos without getting arrested or confiscated.
Axure, I don't think people are worried about the drone's safety. We're more worried about people's safety. As, I had mentioned in the other video, the craft and skill with which it was flown appeared to me like a professional endeavour. Anyone who thinks that police would shoot an RPG in the air like that, let alone have or bring and RPG to riot control has been watching too many movies.
Axure, I'm glad to hear that your police forces are more professional than ours. When things like that happen here, the police try to cover it up, justify it in the name of "officer's safety", or confiscate the video and charge the camer operator with some minor crime.
Two comments, to clarify a bit:
1) The drone used to make this video is a commercial device, professionally maintained and tested. The company operating it undoubtedly has relevant permissions from Polish authorities - at least for "normal" work (filming vistas, buildings, etc, as can be seen on Robokopter's YouTube channel). I'm not sure that automatically translates to legality of flying above crowded streets. Indeed Polish authorities seem to be a bit puzzled by this: The pilot has admitted on a Polish FPV forum, that he had to do some explaining to security services, but so far no-one has challenged the legality of these flights.
It's also worth noting that the pilot was pretty careful in terms of the drone's safety. You might notice at 1:30 of the first film a projectile flying roughly in the direction of the drone. It is also the moment, when the pilot decided to withdraw. ;) [The projectile was a tear gas canister, not an RPG, as someone commented on YouTube ;)]
2) Robert Lefebvre, indeed, on that ground-level video, that is a plain-clothes policeman (brownish jacket) beating a protester/hooligan (blue jacket), who's only fault was that he was walking in a group of skinheads - but failed to run as fast as they did. Warsaw Police has admitted the aggressor was a policeman, suspended him and launched a criminal investigation.
I saw that footage of the girl get serious hurt by a RC helicopter and pretty sure those guys know nothing about AMA rules or even heard of the AMA before. Most serious RC flyers are a member of the AMA, because they fly expensive equipment that's covered for damage by the AMA insurance program, and it also protects them from personal liability.
If you're an RC flyer, and not a member of AMA, and you're serious, you should at least familiarize yourself with the AMA rules, so that you can fly safely. Otherwise, people are just being irresponsible and that's what get's people hurt.
That's exactly what we need is a body that can tell us what are and are not safe practices for flying multirotors. If they're going to become a off-the-shelf type of equipment, more people are going to buy them thinking they're easy to fly, when in reality it will always require some level of technical knowledge.
I'm not really sure that's a valid statement, that RC aircraft are not regulated because the AMA self-regulates. Nobody is required to join AMA when they buy an RC, nor is anybody required to obey their rules. And we've all seen examples of dangerous behaviour with RC's. Even serious injuries due to negligence. There was one famous case where a guy was harassing a girl in a park with his 450, lost control and lacerated her badly. He wasn't even charged with anything.
The AMA rules are only put in place to regulate the insurance policy.
It's a matter of time before enough incidents with Quads will cause governments to start regulating the hobby. The reason why other RC aircraft are not regulated is because there's a self-regulating body like the AMA around to enforce rules. Since the AMA does not currently cover UAVs, we really need to get an equivalent organization together. Bascally, the organization will get some rules for members to follow, and perhaps do some certification.
It's either self-regulate or government regulate. One way or the other regulation sounds imminent.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next