Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

A Drone In the News !!! (NO , it's not what you think)

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

A Drone In the News !!! (NO , it's not what you think)

Old 04-25-2016, 08:12 AM
  #1  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default A Drone In the News !!! (NO , it's not what you think)

So , with all the "bad bad drone" stories we keep seeing on the 6:00 news , here's an interesting twist ;


This morning , the Boston news program running on channel 7 was covering a story of a building fire . No big news here , buildings catch fire a lot and structure fires are a regular thing in most news reports . But this one was different . The entire 30 second or so video clip of the firefighting operations that was shown was video from , you guessed it (as the reporter so happily chirped) "A neighbor's drone" !

Here , we have the FAA and AMA trying to promote "safe droning" and then we have news outlets like channel 7 encouraging unsafe drone use by using this video ? As we all know not flying over folk's heads and not interfering with emergency operations are two of the safety guidelines for all remote control aircraft and here we have a major metropolitan news outlet using video obtained unsafely ? My belief is that not one person at channel 7 knows one thing about drones and I'll bet they haven't a clue about the safety rules that were broken in the video they used .

So now , since this one droner got his "15 minutes of fame" by having his video shown on TV as the centerpiece of a firefighting operation story , You can expect more drones hovering over more disaster incidents , so the next droner can get his 15 minutes as well .

Shame on Boston's channel 7 news for using unsafely obtained video !
Old 04-25-2016, 11:30 AM
  #2  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not surprised by this one bit and apparently since the individual did not work for the news station, Legal.. I do not approve of this at all and it will get worst before it gets better.

May 2015 from the FAA

'II. News Gathering by a Person Using a UASThe news media also may use pictures, video, or other information obtained from a UAS operatedby a person not affiliated with that media outlet. The FAA does not regulate whether a third partynot involved in the operation of an aircraft- manned or unmanned- can receive pictures, videos,or other information that was gathered using that aircraft, or how that third party can use thosepictures, videos, or other information. The focus ofthe FAA's oversight instead will be on theoperator and operation of an aircraft: whether the operation of the UAS to collect the pictures,videos, or other information has been authorized by the FAA (unless the UAS is operated as amodel aircraft under section 336); and whether the operation was conducted in accordance with theterms of the authorization. A media entity that does not have operational control of the UAS and isotherwise not involved in its operation falls outside ofthe FAA's oversight. 1 Whether the mediaentity pays for or obtains the pictures, videos, or other information for free would not affect thisanalysis.A person who wishes to operate a UAS to take pictures or videos or gather other information thatthen would be sold to media outlets would need an FAA authorization for the operation, just as anyother unmanned aircraft operation that does not fall within the section 336 carve-out for modelaircraft would require an FAA authorization. Consistent with the discussion above, the use of anunmanned aircraft by a person media entity to take pictures or videos or gather other informationfor resale would be in fmiherance of that person's business. Therefore, the operations would failthe "hobby or recreation" test of section 336( a) and would need to be authorized by the FAA."

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 04-25-2016 at 11:38 AM.
Old 04-25-2016, 11:47 AM
  #3  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
So , with all the "bad bad drone" stories we keep seeing on the 6:00 news , here's an interesting twist ;


This morning , the Boston news program running on channel 7 was covering a story of a building fire . No big news here , buildings catch fire a lot and structure fires are a regular thing in most news reports . But this one was different . The entire 30 second or so video clip of the firefighting operations that was shown was video from , you guessed it (as the reporter so happily chirped) "A neighbor's drone" !

Here , we have the FAA and AMA trying to promote "safe droning" and then we have news outlets like channel 7 encouraging unsafe drone use by using this video ? As we all know not flying over folk's heads and not interfering with emergency operations are two of the safety guidelines for all remote control aircraft and here we have a major metropolitan news outlet using video obtained unsafely ? My belief is that not one person at channel 7 knows one thing about drones and I'll bet they haven't a clue about the safety rules that were broken in the video they used .

So now , since this one droner got his "15 minutes of fame" by having his video shown on TV as the centerpiece of a firefighting operation story , You can expect more drones hovering over more disaster incidents , so the next droner can get his 15 minutes as well .

Shame on Boston's channel 7 news for using unsafely obtained video !
What was unsafe about it? Did you see the video?
Old 04-25-2016, 12:13 PM
  #4  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
What was unsafe about it? Did you see the video?
#1 Flying directly over people

#2 Yes
Old 04-25-2016, 12:18 PM
  #5  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Were the people involved or did he have permission?
Old 04-25-2016, 12:34 PM
  #6  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Were the people involved or did he have permission?
The people were the firefighters , who were attempting to put out the fire .

This was a neighbor who flew his drone directly over the scene to record video , and no , the news story did not mention whether or not he asked the firefighter's permission to overfly their firefighting operation but a reasonable person would conclude that no , no one asked the firefighters if it was OK to fly a drone directly over their heads as they did their job , and that there would have been so such permission granted .
Old 04-25-2016, 12:42 PM
  #7  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

PS , since it is 100% illegal in the city of Boston , as I'm sure with just about each and every other municipality , to interfere with or endanger the safety of , any public official or employee while they are acting in their official capacity , any and all stupid questions about "permission" are essentially moot . Just the simple act of flying over their heads was a direct threat to their safety while they were on their job and no amount of wordsmithing is gonna change that . I am talking about facts now Sport , not the BS conjecture that you'll try to spin to somehow make it seem OK that this droner endangered those firefighters while they were on duty .

Good luck spinning that .....
Old 04-25-2016, 12:44 PM
  #8  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
The people were the firefighters , who were attempting to put out the fire .
That would be "interfering" with them and illegal in most cities.

Mike
Old 04-25-2016, 12:55 PM
  #9  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
That would be "interfering" with them and illegal in most cities.

Mike
Of course it is , I'm just waitin on seein how Sport is gonna try and twist this so that the droner is fine to hover over the firefighting operation . Now since everybody ELSE in the hobby has to abide by the safety rules such as the 'no overflying of people" rule I just can't see any way possible this droner could be defended .
Old 04-25-2016, 03:13 PM
  #10  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Of course it is , .

To rational folks maybe but this is the internet.

Mike
Old 04-26-2016, 03:57 AM
  #11  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
PS , since it is 100% illegal in the city of Boston , as I'm sure with just about each and every other municipality , to interfere with or endanger the safety of , any public official or employee while they are acting in their official capacity , any and all stupid questions about "permission" are essentially moot . Just the simple act of flying over their heads was a direct threat to their safety while they were on their job and no amount of wordsmithing is gonna change that . I am talking about facts now Sport , not the BS conjecture that you'll try to spin to somehow make it seem OK that this droner endangered those firefighters while they were on duty .

Good luck spinning that .....
Geez, just asking. I thought maybe the people were friends or family at the home and flown over them. In that case it might be perfectly legal. Not sure how much danger the firefighters are. If under .55 pounds the FAA said harm to people and planes are not likely. But likely larger than that.

IMO this complaint may still be making a mountain out of a mole hill. A few years ago nobody would have questioned this.
Old 04-26-2016, 03:59 AM
  #12  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
That would be "interfering" with them and illegal in most cities.

Mike
It may have been interfering if it had crashed into them. Apparently that did not happen.
Old 04-26-2016, 04:35 AM
  #13  
tomfiorentino
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate NY although I often wonder why...
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

"I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires"

Straight from the FAA Safety Guidelines when one obtains a registration number to operate a drone.

Tom
Old 04-26-2016, 04:40 AM
  #14  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tomfiorentino View Post
"I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires"

Straight from the FAA Safety Guidelines when one obtains a registration number to operate a drone.

Tom

Wonder if the guy with the drone was registered?

Mike
Old 04-26-2016, 04:51 AM
  #15  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by tomfiorentino View Post
"I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires"

Straight from the FAA Safety Guidelines when one obtains a registration number to operate a drone.

Tom
It's just a guideline. And not even applicable if under .55 pounds.
Old 04-26-2016, 04:51 AM
  #16  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
Wonder if the guy with the drone was registered?

Mike
Was it required? That is over .55 pounds?
Old 04-26-2016, 05:46 AM
  #17  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tomfiorentino View Post
"I will not fly near emergency response efforts such as fires"

Straight from the FAA Safety Guidelines when one obtains a registration number to operate a drone.

Tom
Hi Tom ,

The biggest reason I took issue with the news crew using the drone footage is exactly as you say , the firefighters shouldn't have to worry about the additional consideration of the safety implications of having drones buzzing about trying to film every gory detail for the 6:00 news . The FAA and the AMA are both trying their best to promote "safe droning" and having TV news stations using unsafely obtained video just "flies in the face" of the campaign for safe droning .

Not forgotten in all this is !

This same TV news crew are the first to air the "bad bad drone" stories , from the guy that was charged for supposedly trying to look into the window of his neighbor to the criminals who use them to get drugs over the prison walls , you know , really fan the public's fears of drones for maximum rating effect . On the one hand they want the public to fear drones but on the other have no problem using video obtained from the unsafe use of one , again for the all important ratings .

Last edited by init4fun; 04-26-2016 at 11:21 AM. Reason: typos
Old 04-26-2016, 05:47 AM
  #18  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
Wonder if the guy with the drone was registered?

Mike
A very good question indeed ...
Old 04-26-2016, 06:37 AM
  #19  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Geez, just asking. I thought maybe the people were friends or family at the home and flown over them. In that case it might be perfectly legal. Not sure how much danger the firefighters are. If under .55 pounds the FAA said harm to people and planes are not likely. But likely larger than that.

IMO this complaint may still be making a mountain out of a mole hill. A few years ago nobody would have questioned this.
Sport , your right , a few years ago nobody would have questioned it . But look what the few years since have brought ? Now that there are supposedly SO many drones that we need all kinds of rules to keep "joe sixpack" from flying his drone in front of airliners , and of course our RC models that don't chase & endanger jetliners have been lumped in with them , I'd think at the very least the media should know better than to use video shot directly over the firefighter's heads . Good grief I think it's item 2 or 3 on the "know before you drone" campaign , no flight over people , and the video was plainly and clearly shot close over people (the firefighters) .

By using that video , don't you think the station has now encouraged others to try to shoot similar videos of disasters near them ? The station went and said "the video was shot from a neighbor's drone" with no mention of the overflying of the firefighters , So I'll bet ALL KINDS of drone owners now think it's perfectly fine to do so , in fact , your video will end up being used as part of the news report of the disaster !

Last edited by init4fun; 04-26-2016 at 06:55 AM.
Old 04-26-2016, 07:22 AM
  #20  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Sport , your right , a few years ago nobody would have questioned it . But look what the few years since have brought ? Now that there are supposedly SO many drones that we need all kinds of rules to keep "joe sixpack" from flying his drone in front of airliners , and of course our RC models that don't chase & endanger jetliners have been lumped in with them , I'd think at the very least the media should know better than to use video shot directly over the firefighter's heads . Good grief I think it's item 2 or 3 on the "know before you drone" campaign , no flight over people , and the video was plainly and clearly shot close over people (the firefighters) .

By using that video , don't you think the station has now encouraged others to try to shoot similar videos of disasters near them ? The station went and said "the video was shot from a neighbor's drone" with no mention of the overflying of the firefighters , So I'll bet ALL KINDS of drone owners now think it's perfectly fine to do so , in fact , your video will end up being used as part of the news report of the disaster !
Good point, but just trying to point out that it may not be as it seems.
Old 04-26-2016, 08:56 AM
  #21  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Good point, but just trying to point out that it may not be as it seems.
You want to hear something funny about this story Sport ?

Had the reporter NOT said "this video was shot by a neighbor's drone" I'd have not given it a passing thought because the quality of the video was SO good that I'd have thought it was shot from the regular manned news helicopter ! You know , all kinds of TV stations have their traffic helicopters that of course end up hovering over and videoing various disasters , crashes , fires & such . Sure , they allow the manned copter to hover over folks because the presumption is that it's better maintained and it's crew is better trained , but when it comes right down to it , both catastrophic mechanical failure and human error don't care how many inspections a machine has had or training and tests a crew have had . I gotta admit I don't trust full scale news reporter's helis hovering over disaster scenes and I trust drones even less , the fire & rescue crews having enough to deal with , with the disaster they're dealing with & all , that they shouldn't have to worry about the additional possible disaster of being crashed on by a stricken full scale or drone .....
Old 04-27-2016, 03:59 AM
  #22  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

https://www.rt.com/usa/340426-anti-d...artup-grounds/

Here's the answer to part of the problem.

Mike
Old 04-27-2016, 05:41 AM
  #23  
init4fun
Thread Starter
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,912
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
https://www.rt.com/usa/340426-anti-d...artup-grounds/

Here's the answer to part of the problem.

Mike

When the government uses that application , it will be considered a covered activity under the mandate of "keeping the skies safe" .

When a private citizen uses it , the government will charge them with "interfering with an aircraft during flight" and the prosecution will begin in earnest .

When you think a bit more about it , , , do you really want any average joe having the ability to "bring down" any aircraft , when they have no control over where it falls especially when using the "disable" function ? .....Possible scenario ; some average joe shuts off someone else's drone , which then falls out of control and kills someone , , , you can bet the person who disabled the drone will face charges .
Old 04-27-2016, 05:43 AM
  #24  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
When the government uses that application , it will be considered a covered activity under the mandate of "keeping the skies safe" .

When a private citizen uses it , the government will charge them with "interfering with an aircraft during flight" and the prosecution will begin in earnest .

When you think a bit more about it , , , do you really want any average joe having the ability to "bring down" any aircraft , when they have no control over where it falls especially when using the "disable" function ? .....Possible scenario ; some average joe shuts off someone else's drone , which then falls out of control and kills someone , , , you can bet the person who disabled the drone will face charges .

It would be entertaining.

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 04-27-2016 at 05:46 AM.
Old 04-28-2016, 08:53 AM
  #25  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
When the government uses that application , it will be considered a covered activity under the mandate of "keeping the skies safe" .

When a private citizen uses it , the government will charge them with "interfering with an aircraft during flight" and the prosecution will begin in earnest .

When you think a bit more about it , , , do you really want any average joe having the ability to "bring down" any aircraft , when they have no control over where it falls especially when using the "disable" function ? .....Possible scenario ; some average joe shuts off someone else's drone , which then falls out of control and kills someone , , , you can bet the person who disabled the drone will face charges .
There will be issues if the government uses this as well. Especially if the drone drops out of the sky and hits someone. Do we really want anyone doing this because of the very slim chance they will hit an airplane and put a ding in the airframe?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.