The General Drone-Related Thread

MWHCVT said:
It was very close but I don't think they actually got hit...looked like a catastrophic failure in the quad, I'm guessing they'll have to perform a full review as to the cause given the prominence of the failure being live on TV...
Click to expand...

It did miss, but it was less than a second from hitting him on the head.

 
MWHCVT said:
Yeah but most CPCW staff wouldn't know their arse from their elbow...you might get the occasionally one the has product knowledge but most only seem to have knowledge of extended warranties and the selling of them
Click to expand...

Staff training there only seems to cover 'upselling'.

Interesting to see that in the USA registration of quadcopters over 9 ounces in weight became compulsory yesterday. The force behind this wasn't the FAA it was the industry and responsible users.
 
Dave1 said:
It did miss, but it was less than a second from hitting him on the head.
Click to expand...

Also interesting. It appears to be something about the 900 size so probably officially filming? Yes, hobby users can buy them but a fully loaded S900 series is going to cost a lot more than pocket money (around £1000 for the frame, add the gps, flight control, lightbridge, gimbal, camera, batteries etc and you are over £4000 with cheaper components) .
 
LOL... Wish I could print that out to sho 'me mate.... He is a BIG drone fanatic. Thanks Lain
 
When they showed te crash on the BBC they carefully avoided saying it was almost certainly for the TV coverage so presumably fully licenced and trained operator.
It looked like some kind of mechanical failure rather than loss of control.
 
MWHCVT said:
Yeah but most CPCW staff wouldn't know their arse from their elbow...you might get the occasionally one the has product knowledge but most only seem to have knowledge of extended warranties and the selling of them
Click to expand...

morfis said:
Staff training there only seems to cover 'upselling'.

Interesting to see that in the USA registration of quadcopters over 9 ounces in weight became compulsory yesterday. The force behind this wasn't the FAA it was the industry and responsible users.
Click to expand...

As box shifters, places like PCWCurrys will be shifting more than responsible sellers who might have better knowledge of both the products and regulations covering their use. The fact that the box shifters are telling customers that there are no regulations cannot be a good thing. Had we not ben in a bit of a hurry, I would have had a word with the manager.
 
Markus Waldner, FIS racing director, has already ruled out ever using drones again.

"The use of drones at great events in Austria and Switzerland is forbidden. But it is allowed in Italy," he said.

"That's why we agreed with [broadcasters] Infront that drones are not to fly above the raceway, but only above a corridor besides the spectators. I am sorry.

"What happened is a total mess and there will be consequences. Drones won't be used in the future."
 
I am afraid they are here to stay, it is an introduction into the future, they are used more than we realise,
the BG to most technology is make it easy to use for the masses.... I started flying RC just under a year ago, with the view to get a camera drone... the human element makes most of these things go wrong:)
 
wallyboy said:
I am afraid they are here to stay, it is an introduction into the future, they are used more than we realise,
the BG to most technology is make it easy to use for the masses.... I started flying RC just under a year ago, with the view to get a camera drone... the human element makes most of these things go wrong:)
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the converted. As far as I know there are only 2 of us with a PFAW on this forum.
 
wallyboy said:
I am afraid they are here to stay, it is an introduction into the future, they are used more than we realise,
Click to expand...

They may well be here to stay but I wouldn't put a bet on there being a dramatic tightening of the rules and even commercial use banned if any overflight has to go over or near people. The technology is still young and it will only take a crash to actually hit people for those legislative knees to start jerking quite severely...
 
Rob 80386 said:
Geo fencing can easily be bypassed, just unplug the GPS unit and fly in ATTI mode, sure you'll have no RTH, but it certainly makes flying more fun.

Btw I don't condone irresponsible flying, but I don't see why we should be constrained by dictatorship companies/governments, have fun, fly safef:)
Click to expand...

And this is why legislation needs to be brought in, if not wide ranging restrictions on their use. :)
 
Dave1 said:
They may well be here to stay but I wouldn't put a bet on there being a dramatic tightening of the rules and even commercial use banned if any overflight has to go over or near people. The technology is still young and it will only take a crash to actually hit people for those legislative knees to start jerking quite severely...
Click to expand...
Not so sure this will happen, they are seen as a toy, by lots of people, there is a link somewhere in the RC world with lots of accidents,
the thing is with the quad it is relatively easy to fly, so will be so much more appealing to potential flyers,
 
In the USA 45000 people registered quadcopters in the first two days of their new scheme. System is offline today as it needed a holiday?
 
A sign of the future, the drone catcher...

main_p1645508.jpg


The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department is using multicopters equipped with large nets to catch in mid-air unauthorised unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that may threaten public safety, a video posted by the NowThisFuture popular science media organisation demonstrated.

The video posted on the organisation's Facebook page shows a six-rotored UAV, similar to an MK Hexacopter, of the Tokyo police dragging a large net beneath it. The police UAV is flown over the flight path of the illicit UAV, capturing it in the net before returning it to the ground.

As noted by NowThisFuture, this innovation has been developed in response to a number of recent incidents in which small, remotely controlled (RC) aircraft have breached security around national landmarks and other sensitive sites. Specifically, the video referenced incursions over the prime minister's office and Imperial Palace, as well as an incident in April in which a UAV carrying radioactive soil from near the Fukushima nuclear power station was landed onto the prime minister's roof.
Click to expand...

http://www.janes.com/article/56871/tokyo-police-use-flying-net-to-capture-illicit-uavs
 
Wayne Els said:
And this is why legislation needs to be brought in, if not wide ranging restrictions on their use. :)
Click to expand...

boyfalldown said:
What legislation over that which exists already?
Click to expand...

Wayne Els said:
OK some sort of licensing and much stricter enforcement then.
Click to expand...

The current regulations are more than adequate and have been for around 40 years, maybe longer.
What's needed is better justice for those that take the mick, so that the majority don't suffer because of the actions of a few that are being irresponsible.
 
Yeah I saw that via Facebook an hour or so ago, I think it could actually be a positive for the community to see a celeb enjoying the hobby and showing there is no nefarious desire behind the usage, he does need to learn a bit more about flying it though clearly :p
 
Last edited:
allanm said:
Of course, the Tokyo Police drone could just as easily malfunction and crash...............
Licensing and regulations won't stop accidents. Nor will it stop careless people flying them where they shouldn't Look what happens to cars....
Click to expand...

Odds are the police drone will only be flown by properly trained and accredited operators with liability insurance, and not some clueless untrained idiot who bought the drone in the sales at ToysRUs and then decided to fly over a busy road or stadium because he thought it looked like a fun thing to video...
 
Dave1 said:
Odds are the police drone will only be flown by properly trained and accredited operators with liability insurance, and not some clueless untrained idiot who bought the drone in the sales at ToysRUs and then decided to fly over a busy road or stadium because he thought it looked like a fun thing to video...
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how well trained one is flying a multicopter, malfunctions can happen and quite seriously too, I've had a few of my own where props have let go in flight, to electrical problems like voltage sag and ESC reset causing a crash dispite doing bench/preflight checks.

I don't think chasing down a multi with another multi is the safest way to go about it. The best way to catch the operator is to let the offending multi fly it's mission, then track it as it returns back to its starting place, wait for it to land and then move in for the bust.
 
They'd both crash anyway, the result would be worse than shooting it down if there was a real concern.
I suspect it's a spoof picture since who'd be so stupid ? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Rob 80386 said:
Doesn't matter how well trained one is flying a multicopter, malfunctions can happen and quite seriously too, I've had a few of my own where props have let go in flight, to electrical problems like voltage sag and ESC reset causing a crash dispite doing bench/preflight checks.
Click to expand...

maybe they just need better safety measures, emergency parachutes + sirens perhaps ;)

I am aware that these are regulated but I've not had the time to really look in to it so want to ask the more experienced ones here. I was thinking of getting one for group shots at weddings, as well as exterior high shots of properties. Would being licensed and trained allow me to do this or would you still be restricted in these cases?
 
Harvey_nikon said:
maybe they just need better safety measures, emergency parachutes + sirens perhaps ;)

I am aware that these are regulated but I've not had the time to really look in to it so want to ask the more experienced ones here. I was thinking of getting one for group shots at weddings, as well as exterior high shots of properties. Would being licensed and trained allow me to do this or would you still be restricted in these cases?
Click to expand...

The CAA licence isn't a licence to fly anywhere, you are still restricted unless you have permission to conduct the flight, as far as I understand that means making sure everyone is briefed about what you will do, also the correct insurance is needed, I don't think BMFA alone covers it. Also its fairly expensive, so ask yourself will it be worth it in the long run.
As I'm only a hobby operator you'll have to do some research on the subject of commercial licensing.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
maybe they just need better safety measures, emergency parachutes + sirens perhaps ;)

I am aware that these are regulated but I've not had the time to really look in to it so want to ask the more experienced ones here. I was thinking of getting one for group shots at weddings, as well as exterior high shots of properties. Would being licensed and trained allow me to do this or would you still be restricted in these cases?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, if within five miles of an airport you need to let them know in advance. You need the owners permission to fly on or within 50 metres of it including property, cars etc. Flight plans must be logged with pre flight checks and battery levels logged. Any person within 50m of your drone must be under your control and give their permission. It certainly doesn't make life easy to operate as a business, maybe part of the reason not many bother with a license
 
BruceMo said:
Off the top of my head, if within five miles of an airport you need to let them know in advance. You need the owners permission to fly on or within 50 metres of it including property, cars etc. Flight plans must be logged with pre flight checks and battery levels logged. Any person within 50m of your drone must be under your control and give their permission. It certainly doesn't make life easy to operate as a business, maybe part of the reason not many bother with a license
Click to expand...


It's a good job we aren't relying on your memory really :)

A better guide.

https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/
 
Rob 80386 said:
The CAA licence isn't a licence to fly anywhere, you are still restricted unless you have permission to conduct the flight, as far as I understand that means making sure everyone is briefed about what you will do, also the correct insurance is needed, I don't think BMFA alone covers it. Also its fairly expensive, so ask yourself will it be worth it in the long run.
As I'm only a hobby operator you'll have to do some research on the subject of commercial licensing.
Click to expand...

As I keep reminding people. There is NO CAA license. The CAA issue a PFAW to those that have met its qualifying criteria.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
As I keep reminding people. There is NO CAA license. The CAA issue a PFAW to those that have met its qualifying criteria.
Click to expand...

I know what it is, its a set of permissions given to those that qualify, to me that is still a "licence" even if it doesn't specifically say so. ;)

boyfalldown said:
It's a good job we aren't relying on your memory really :)

A better guide.

https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/
Click to expand...

An even better guide https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-Industry/Aircraft/Unmanned-aircraft/Small-unmanned-aircraft/
 
Only just noticed this thread, thanks for starting it up :)

Borrowed my friend's Phantom 2 V+ while he's on his honeymoon and I love it. So much so, that I ordered one last Thursday! Just waiting for snail mail to deliver.

Will take a read through this thread now, many thanks.
 
I'd agree, however the P2V+ is good to learn with - just harder - or rather more involving to manage the technical aspects of maintenance such as plugging it into the computer to do calibrations.
(this is all done from the app on the P3)
While the video is not as good as P3 the stills especially if you use RAW are not that different.
The camera has go-pro style fish-eye distortion but is easily corrected, and has a wider field of view which is sometimes useful.
 
boyfalldown said:
It's a good job we aren't relying on your memory really :)

A better guide.

https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/
Click to expand...

I remembered some of the relevant bits to me. Enough to put me off bothering getting a license
I know it's not a license but no where does it mention drones either :p

Edit to say wrong again..... It used to be uav when I first looked, did they change that because of popular vocabulary?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top