Why does almost everyone hate drones?

<p>Fred: To take politics out of the posts would mean that the thread should have been stopped when it was first started. The OP presented political questions; policy questions about the use of drones. Not wanted the government to add another limitation on my freedoms by adding unnecessary regulations is certainly an acceptable response to questions about policy of how we should regulate drones. No one but you brought up MSNBC and FOX. I have no idea what their beliefs are about drones nor do I care. I gave you my beliefs about my freedoms. You certainly have a right to disagree with me and present opposing viewpoints. But you have no right to shut me up, your usual fall back position when you disagree with someone. </p>

<p>Who can be for <em>"unwarranted and unnecessary regulations"</em> ? We are all against such regulations, I would think, Alan included.<br>

<br /> When that is said, all governments are presently fighting to come up with those urgently needed regulations and laws, whether local, national or international, which can help protecting our freedoms and safety against the dangers drones can represent to people and communities. Such regulations would concern technical safety regulations of drones and regulations on the usage of drones by individuals, government agencies, national or foreign.</p>

<p>Anders: you are not speaking from an informed position on this. "All governments" - in the context of this topic - are actually all over the map on this topic. Many, even most, aren't "fighting for" anything along the lines you describe. Those that have recognized the enormous potential for business, productivity, creativity, and science have long since written their rules. Those that are instead reacting to hysteria about how people who take tree-top landscape shots or who produce commissioned architecture portfolios are endangering "people and communities" have done things like completely ban the use of these devices without any regard to their utility.<br /><br />The foreign (to you) US, advising on the internal conduct of which often seems to be your hobby, is a mixed bag. Remote control devices, no matter how small, have for example been entirely banned from huge swaths of the US. Businesses willing to spend vast sums to conduct research have been waiting so long for the FAA to get its act together have simply moved their research activities to Canada, where there is less delirious moral panic over interesting uses for aircraft.<br /><br />In the meantime, people looking to do creative things with cameras have managed to still get fantastic work produced. Despite the breathless hand-wringing about what amounts to non-existent threats to "people and communities" - as compared to the <em>millions</em> of people taking aerial photos - the tools are still being put to wonderful use. Your urge to continue to subtly conflate military and law enforcement use with the sort of creative use relevant to this forum and web site, would come across as strange, if I didn't know better. We're not talking about law enforcement here, or military use.</p>

<p>Please note this is not an "Off-Topic" forum. Please stick to the use of drones in photography. We aren't here to discuss the military use of drones in warfare or Amazon's plans to deliver packages via drones. There are plenty of photography related drone issues to discuss.</p>

<p>For example the National Park Service bans all drones in National parks. Most drones are/were flown in parks for photography. Last year someone crashed a drone into one of the hot springs in Yellowstone. It hasn't been recovered and it's not known what sort of damage it may cause.</p>

<p>While some photographers might want to photograph from drones in the National Parks, I like the ban. The last thing I want when I'm out in the wilderness (or even a a hot spring in Yellowstone or in Yosemite valley) is a bunch of drones buzzing overhead. Anyone who wants to fly a drone in a National Park should have to obtain a permit which will state exactly where and when the drone activity is authorized. That way the disturbance can be limited and still allow occasional drone flights in areas the Park service thinks appropriate. Anyone crashing a drone into the park should be fully financially responsible for recovery and associated costs incurred by the Park. Unauthorized drone use should be subject to penalties and fines.</p>

<p>The only negative thing I can say about the ban is that it isn't widely publicized. It was a temporary ban when introduced last year. I'm not sure of the current status, but I live right next to Acadia National Park and I've yet to see one sign or mention in any of the Park literature that drones are not allowed. I haven't seen any drones either (yet...). I think a drone flier in Hawaii was actually tasered by a Park Ranger. That's going a little bit<em> too</em> far. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28914009/drone-operator-chased-tased-by-ranger-at-hawaii-volcanoes-national-park</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok Bob, I'll bite. Here's a question that maybe Matt Laur could inform us. What camera (video and/or still) adjustments, composition, filters, exposure, and other factors do you have to consider when shooting pictures from a drone that is different from photography taken on the ground?</p>

<p>Whew! That was close. Good save, Alan.<br /><br />It would take a lot to pass along what I've learned so far. All standard photographic principles apply, it's just that most of us aren't used to composing from those perspectives. That's one of the key points about it, as it relates to this thread, though: it turns out that shooting from high altitudes with a personal drone is pretty well pointless. It just ends up looking like something from Google Earth. Where these tools really shine is in providing a tree-top style mode, where the human eye can still feel the subject from a nearly familiar perspective. Those unusual angles end up feeling about like looking down from a five-story building - and ironically, many people will look at the resulting images and have no idea that the camera was flying when the shot was made. Too high, and that breaks down.<br /><br />In practical terms: it depends on the rig you're using. My smallest machine uses a GoPro - so we're at the mercy of that camera's software when it comes to exposure. If it wants to blow out highlights, it's going to blow out highlights! But when shooting video from the air with that camera, I use a strong ND filter to force it to a slow(er) shutter speed. If the shutter speed creeps up too high, there's almost no way to avoid rolling shutter artifacts because of the inevitable vibrations in the platform.<br /><br />I have a larger rig that flies a Sony NEX-7. No in-air exposure control, so it's either an automated or semi-automated exposure, or I meter from the ground, set up the exposure, and then fly. I can shoot and roll video, but no alter exposure comp, etc., while up. But on that rig and on the small one, I'm looking at NTSC-quality video downlink on the ground so I can see framing, etc. On this bigger machine, I've got a two-man config that allows control over camera orientation while in flight, so that makes it possible to execute some pretty complex shots (a fading-away climb with some lateral movement while the camera does a pan-and-tilt ... you get the idea).<br /><br />My most recent tool uses a proprietary camera and gimbal, and uses a very slick groundstation app. So perched above the control transmitter is an iPad that's showing me telemetry, a full high-def camera downlink, and complete control over every aspect of the camera (ISO, white balance, shutter speed, focus point/mode, that sort of thing), with appropriate things presenting depending on whether we're in still or video mode. That level of complete integration between the flight controller and the camera system is huge for creative people. I can actually see and react to histograms, classical exposure zebras, focus peaking - the works. <br /><br />This stuff is evolving very, very quickly. None of that means a thing, of course, if you've got nothing interesting to shoot. And that brings us back to the atmosphere of this thread. I don't have problems shooting because people <em>ask</em> me to. I show up just to visit, and people ask me if I have one of the drones in the car, because they've been telling their neighbor about it and they want to share. It's all about helping people to see the results (ideally, on the fly, looking over my shoulder while I'm in the air and composing the shots). That pretty much always changes their tune from, "We must stop these evil threats to our communities!" to "Hey, my friend puts up a hay bale maze in his back field every fall - can you come by and shoot some video of it from overhead? That would be so interesting!"<br /><br />Biggest factor for most experienced photographers getting in the air: you're pretty much always going to be working with wide (or very wide) angle lenses. They're physically shorter, and do less to magnify vibrations. Biggest factor that most experienced photographer don't realize is REALLY the biggest factor: safety, and that involves all sorts of things that new drone operators usually haven't thought through. For that, they should spend time visiting sites like RCgroups.com, where you will find thousands of people sharing information in a way that will make you remember photo.net from years ago. </p>

<p>Some drones (at least the RC helicopter variety, which do quality as drones - remotely piloted aircraft) can be lethal - http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-helicopter-kills-man-in-brooklyn/ That guy just killed himself, but he could have killed other people. Most of the RC camera carrying drones don't have a single massive helicopter blade but even a "safer" drone could cause injury if it accidentally crashed and hit someone, especially one of the larger ones carrying serious camera gear. Safety certainly is an issue to be considered since as far as I know you don't need any sort of licence or training to fly one for hobby or recreational purposes and I don't think there's a limit on drone size and weight for hobbyists is there (other than the cost)?</p>

<p>That's one of the reasons, Bob, that pretty much everybody in that line work won't go anywhere near a larger-scale RC helicopter. Just as they've always been for the enthusiasts who just fly them for fun (like the guy who killed himself - a reckless stunt flier doing "3D" flying inches from his own face with a copter that basically has blades like two samurai swords rotating at thousands of RPMs), those are dangerous. I would never fly one as a camera ship, period.<br /><br />Even good old Mythbusters recently got in on this topic showing that the small plastic blades on the sort of small quadcopters that millions of people are now flying are actually quite flexible and, really, incapable of causing such injuries. Bigger machines, as some pros use? More dangerous, especially if they're using carbon fiber rotors. <br /><br />One of the great features of larger machines, like an octocopter, is that you can have one or two motors fail in flight, and still get in a nice, safe, controlled landing. Helicopter designs simply can't do that. They're used regularly in Japan for crop spraying, but not for camera work - just too risky, especially now that there are such great designs in multirotors. The flight controllers I'm using will nicely return the machines to my launching point if, for example, I lose transmitter link.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to catch any of these machines in the face, but then I go to no small amount of trouble to make sure that's not going to happen to me or anyone else when I'm operating. If we're in close quarters, I use the smallest, lightest machine with the flimsy props. As needed, I can put prop guards on that unit. On my biggest rig, the props are folders, and can pivot on the motor hubs. </p>

<p>Quite coincidentally, drone photography was brought up to me yesterday. I do real estate photography and an agent said that for large suburban properties, drones are now being used to give a better aerial view than Google provides. I don't work in that market, strictly urban where the most a drone would show is a roof, but interesting. I'm not sure there's much concern for privacy or danger unless the people living in the home don't know it's happening.</p>

<p>You might be surprised, Jeff. With something like a GoPro's very wide angle lens, you could get out in front of a lot of urban buildings and show off things like its place on the street, how a rooftop garden is situated, etc. - and not run into the boring angle that Google provides. Those Google images are also very often well out of date (and then there's the copyright issue!). <br /><br />The trick in an urban setting is usually to get out very early in the AM when you might be able to catch an empty (and thus safer) street. That can be pretty hard in a large, thriving metro area.<br /><br />But no question that the real estate market is embracing these new perspectives. It's becoming conspicuous by its absence with certain kinds of listings.</p>

Banana is not a fruit, it is a berry. Also strawberry is not a berry it is a fruit.

Anyway the awfull tasting yellow one may be on the verge of extinction from a mold infection that has reached the west coast.

<p>I remember when the mango tried to claim the title of the world's most popular fruit. The tomato people said "not so fast" the tomato is really a fruit and therefore it is number one! </p>

I am an 8000 hour airline transport pilot. I worked in an executive capacity at the FAA some years ago. I have not read

all of this thread. Drones are here whether one likes them or not. They are being used in commerce without license

because the FAA has not, I don't think at this time begun mass licensing for commercial use. There have been some

close calls near airports between aircraft and drones. IMO there is no stopping the commercial use of these things. I

was at a recent airshow.where the ones I looked at did not have much mass but the cameras they carry do have some

mass and probably one of the them could shut down a jet engine. My hope is that the FAA licenses them in a sensible

manner and operators form a user organization if they have not already done so to advise the FAA and participate the

development of regulations. The horse is long out of the barn so shutting the barn door will not help.

<p>Drones and remote cameras may be part of the reason why some events are starting to require a one million dollar liability insurance policy for photographers.</p>

<p>What events? Insurance for visitors or pros?</p>

<p>Venues requiring visiting vendors/service providers to carry liability insurance is nothing new. Many wedding reception facilities, for example, have required photographers to name them on their policies as part of the gig - for many, many years. As we've seen with drones spending literally millions of hours in the air, the number of claims for actual injuries has been, in practical terms, zero. A lot of photographers would argue that the number of wedding guests injured by falling light stands or tripping on a tripod is also vanishingly small - but those requirements are just part of doing business and always have been.</p>

<p>""<em>you are not speaking from an informed position on this.</em>""<br>

Matt, what do you know about informed position of others ? You can only hope and guess, I think.<br>

<br>

Indeed as I wrote, Governments and local authorities are fighting and struggling to come up with correct answers to drones and drone use, especially by photographers or video transmissions (farmers, police, journalists etc). <br>

<br>

I leave it totally to you to have your sharp cut opinions on the subject when it comes to what goes on in your back yard, but just for information here are some appetizers from Europe: France, Sweden and England.<br>

<br>

Here reference to the French recent discussions on drone regulation especially after drone cameras flew over Paris, where any over-flight is strictly controlled and mostly forbidden:<br>

<a href="http://drones.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/05/28/la-reglementation-des-drones-de-loisirs-attendra/">http://drones.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/05/28/la-reglementation-des-drones-de-loisirs-attendra/</a><br>

Here is a similar discussion from Sweden:<br>

<a href="https://www.datatilsynet.no/Teknologi/Dronar--kva-er-lov/">https://www.datatilsynet.no/Teknologi/Dronar--kva-er-lov/</a><br>

Here is the English situation:<br>

<a href="http://shop.droneflight.co.uk/pages/summary-of-uk-legal-requirements">http://shop.droneflight.co.uk/pages/summary-of-uk-legal-requirements</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>You're making my point FOR me, Anders. Those countries and jurisdictions aren't fighting to do anything. They've already long since DONE what they were going to do. The laws are in place, the limitations are already there. Whatever freedoms photographers may have had have already been restricted in each place in its own way. There is no fighting, there is simply each place's limitations, now already defined. </p>

<p>Alan, I'm referring to a local car show which I've photographed as a freelance photographer for about ten years. Since this event, and others it seems, now have their own photography staff and supply free photos to media outlets, I figured whats the point anymore and I skipped it.</p>

<p>No Matt in all these discussions, and you can add most of other European countries, drone laws and regulations are being discussed, changed and re-formulated in order optimally to control products and forms of usage, which challenge peoples right of security and privacy. All too complex a process for being discussed in a thread like this. <br>

Anyway. I I believe to have understood what you wanted to convey as message, whether you are right or wrong. </p>

<p>An article in this morning's Washington Post describes an FAA report detailing hundreds of close calls between drones and aircraft. No city has seen more illicit drones than New York. Just since this March, pilots flying into or out of LaGuardia and Kennedy airports have reported encounters with drones 33 times, according to the article.</p>

<p>The article states that Senator Charles Schumer of New York has pledged to introduce legislation requiring manufacturers to install technology on all drones to prevent them from flying above 500 feet, near airports or in sensitive airspace. Such technology, known as geo-fencing, relies on satellite navigation to pinpoint a drone’s location. DJI, the world’s leading seller of consumer drones, began programming such technology last year into all models sold in the United States. Such restrictions should not impede photography in legitimate locations, although, even with geo-fencing, there is still plenty of room for misuse. </p>

 

I finally got to reading this entire thread because to subject interests me. I think Matt is very well versed on the

subject and as an operator he will do the right thing. The rapid growth of drone use kind of took my former

organization short. I have been reading up on FAAs efforts to license commercial operations. An altitude governor

is a step in the right direction. The FAA is now granting waivers for commercial operations below 200 feet away from

congested areas and airports but as I read not many of them have been issued. Much of my 41 year aviation career

was spent in investigatiing aircraft accidents and working in accident prevention. Commercial photographers need

the freedom to operate drones. If you look at other operations like ultralight aircraft you see that they do have

significant freedom to operate even though there accident rate is higher than private aircraft. There will be drone

accidents as commercial drone operators need the freedom to operate as do ultralights It is the job of the regulators

to respect that freedom while trying to make the operation as safe as possible. You cannot regulate good sense.

People will get hurt and die over time just as they do in ultralights and all other aircraft. The job is to integrate

drones into the system with as much safety as possible with standards for flight, training and operator certification.

Non-commercial use of drones is regulated as to areas and altitudes of operations but non-commercial operators are

not required to be licensed. As I said it is upon us and we have to figure out how to live with it.

I don't think people hate drones because the way in which the use of drones is to be regulated is still a work in progress. People hate drones in large part for the same reason why it is a good idea, necessary, to draw up some rules to regulate the use of drones.<br>It's those users of these things who obviously can't regulate themselves and need rules spelled out to them to know that there are boundaries to what people will accept of them and their drones, and punishment for those who even then don't know that they at best are annoying people when they cross those boundaries anyway. Somehow, some people think that because they can and other people can't stop them, it is allowed and proper to do what they want.<br>Regulation is necessary. But that is a product of the actual use of drones just as people hating drones is. Indecent behaviour of some of those who use drones is why people hate drones. Not the lack of rules that spell out the obvious and prohibit indecent behaviour.

<p>I've been flying and making photographs with my multi-rotors since Sept of 2012. Most people I encounter while flying are very curious but I could <em>not</em> say "most people hate" drones at all.</p>

<p>Even made a web site offering services:<br /> <a href="http://www.aerialphoto123.com">www.AerilPhoto123.com</a></p>

<p>..and yes, I've heard from the FAA about it.</p>

<p>Also, the media loves stories that makes drones and their operators look bad. It's far less common for news stories about drones to be "positive". <strong>Bad news sells better than good news.</strong></p>

<p>Here's a link to some of my <a href="https://plus.google.com/photos/104688579048759425474/albums/6069783665598631601"><strong>drone aerial photography:</strong></a></p>

<p>I fly a Sony NEX 6 camera.</p>

<p>BTW drones are not silent and they can't listen as the OP seems to believe.</p><div></div>

I think it too early to look at drone safety as compared to other forms of aviation activity. Accident data will be

difficult to collect for drones. Data is currently collected for ultralights, private aircraft, and commercial aircraft. I don't

think there is a structure for reporting drone accidents currently so it is hard to determine their impact on society.

The FAA has the responsibility for aviation safety. That means overseeing entire US aviation operation with the

prime responsibility of safety followed by improving system efficiency. Their task with drones is to integrate drone

operations into the system while protecting all aircraft already operating in the system, the public at large riding in

airplanes and those living below aviation activities including drones. Hence the current rules about staying away

from airports, staying below 400 or 200 feet, and staying away from airports. Similar rules have a applied for many

years for model airplane flight. Note that model airplane operations have had very little safety impact upon the entire

system. See and be seen is a rule that has applied in aviation since the Wright brothers. It is still vital in today's

operations. It applies to drone operations by requirng operators to keep their drone in sight and away trom other

aircraft. The only time see and be seen does not apply is when out of cockpit visibility is impeded in actual weather

and/or flying above certain altitudes. It means that all pilots have to look out the window in visual conditions.

Airlines today use collision warning systems to aid in spotting conflicting aircraft. The risk of mid-air collision is still

present as evidenced by continuing mid-air collisions. This is the milieu that drones have entered recently by large

numbers. The only thing the FAA regulates is safety in airborne operations and of the airworthiness of the drones

themselves. Privacy issues are not in FAA jurisdiction. It is my opinion that drones do present some hazard but

they actually fall more in the category of model airplanes as they should be operated away from most aviation

activities. There is risk property damage and and midair collision particularly if they are operated out of defined

parameters or if they are operated by uninformed, untrained or unskilled operators. That is why I believe the FAA

has placed a 55 pound weight restriction on recreational and most current approved commercial operations.

Drones are here to stay and they are being accommodated in the system. We need considerably more data and

experience with drones to determine their actual impact upon the system. There have been a couple of incidents

reported of drones operating within major airport boundaries without approval. Whether this was done in ignorance

or deliberate there has to be vigorous enforcement and some required training on the rules.