Fireworks filmed with a drone

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I am very much in favor of drone regulation. Just as I am in favor of regulating who drives on the road, at what age, and under the influence of what substances. (I know people break the laws but I'm still glad we have licenses and driving regulations.) I know it's very popular to talk about senators and congresspeople who are ignorant and don't care, but that's no excuse for not allowing regulatory agencies to at least try to keep things safe and running smoothly and equitably for the common good.</p>

<p>I'd advise checking out the credentials of anyone writing about drones and their regulation to see what their general thoughts about regulation are . . . for instance environmental protections. You will get a better feel for how much is specifically about drones and how much is specifically about governmental intervention.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Matt: Great video. One comment. About 2/3 through it kind of kept getting stopped. Not sure it was from my end or the server or band width. </p>

<p>Your video is exactly the kind of important work that drones can do for the public. From realty views for property sales to farm operations and advertising products from a better and more unique perspective. In watching your video I noticed high voltage power distribution lines in the background. Imagine after a storm when the utility can send drones out to check their lines for where failures occurred. This would speed repairs and get power back to the public quickly. Look at what Google did with satellite and street views. It's opened up everyone for better transportation, travel, hiking, etc. </p>

<p>Let's hope people think beyond the difficulties and potential dangers and regulate with some common sense. It's just another tool that has huge potential for good.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Alan: not sure why you're getting playback hanging up - that's between you and Vimeo, I'm afraid - seems like a caching issue. Certainly it's played back well across most other platforms I've tried. Even limited to 720p, it's a lot of data to haul across, that's for sure.<br /><br />As to regulations: the issue at hand is the wildly random patchwork of rules that permit one person to operate such equipment, but the next person not to - despite doing exactly the same thing in the same place, the same way, but charging $100 to do so. No difference in safety practices, and quite possibly the real prospect that the person using it as a professional tool is being MORE careful, and likely carrying insurance that the hobbyist wouldn't be bothered to have.<br /><br />It's outside the scope of this thread to fully explore the FAA's peculiarly tone-deaf handling of this, but they've been told by congress to get this technology integrated into the pubic airspace by a deadline that the FAA says they don't plan to meet - and in the meantime they're issuing a flurry of inscrutable, vague, dubiously authoritative documents that likely don't have the force of law but which are leaving thousands of realtors, videographers, emergency responders, farmers, and countless others feeling unable to fly a tiny GoPro camera 40 feet off the ground while hobbyists who just got their first quadcopter fly over a crowd and into the fireworks half an hour after UPS drops off that new toy they bought from Amazon.<br /><br />Meanwhile Senator Diane Feinstein, offended that some Code Pink protesters were flying a string-tethered $30 bought-at-the-shopping-mall pink plastic toy helicopter outside her house during a protest chant, says we're going to have to do something "to stop these drones!" I cite that example to point out that the pressure on this topic is NOT coming from experts at all (quite the opposite), and the regulatory agency tasked with dealing with aircraft is NOT conducting itself in a timely, constructive, or even constitutionally sound way (we have a formal regulatory rule making process on the books, and they've chosen to bypass it - and indeed one judge has already smacked them around for issuing a fine with no formal basis for doing so).<br /><br />Most people don't care about such stuff until its their own ox being gored, but if it were the FCC or Homeland Security acting on the use of telephoto lenses or discreet street photography cameras in the same uninformed way, there would be <em>much</em> wailing and gnashing of teeth here on PN, believe me. In the meantime, those of us building proficiency in the safe, constructive use of this rapidly emerging technology have to just suck it up and learn everything we can while working under the FAA's Random Sword Of Damocles. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Alan, I don't think anyone disputes the good drones can do, but in this case it's more about the decision a drone pilot made to disregard safety and common sense in order to commit an act of personal indulgence. </p>

<p>Drones are not fail-safe. The shock wave from an exploding shell at close range is enough to raise concerns not to mention the high risk of damage from colliding with high speed exploding fragments. The drone can lose control and potentially fly into spectators or the fireworks control center causing injury, death, or property damage.</p>

<p>Anyone with common sense will hesitate to engage in such a reckless act; it's the young owners without the maturity and consideration for others, who will, without hesitation, and with utter disregard for the law or regulations, do it for their 15 minutes of fame. These are precisely the people who are spoiling the fun for every drone owner and making new laws and regulations necessary. <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

I suspect there will be liability issues coming up in the future as drones crash and

cause damage and/or casualties, either from simple device malfunction or due to unskilled operators.

 

I wonder if operators at least carry adequate liability insurance that specifically covers their actions that

end up harming property or people? Have a feeling that's a no, with possibly the exception of

business-based drone operators.

 

No problem here seeing thoughtful regulations put in place. A major accident caused by a malfunctioning drone will likely speed that up.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matt is correct that a political discussion of the regulations is beyond the scope of this thread, but since California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein was singled out (she has sometimes been used a convenient punching bag with high name recognition for certain political interests), it's probably worth mentioning that, for example, in Texas, Lance Gooden, a Republican state representative, introduced and helped pass drone restrictive legislation through the Assembly which Republican Governor Rick Perry has already signed. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Fred brings up an important point. Hundreds of non-federal jurisdictions have passed local, county, or state ordinances that directly or indirectly impact use of this technology. In the case of the Texas law in question, it was related to privacy, and prohibited the use of these machines for the intentional surveillance of people on private property without permission. Privacy issues (in many cases, imagined as often as real) are driving all sorts action. This is completely separate from issues like the administration's new ban on the use of any RC device - no matter how small or quiet - anywhere along the over 14,000 miles of shore and coastline or in millions of acres of wide open plains or forests that happen to be administered by the DOI's NPS. It's those sorts of wild over-reactions that have people in the business shaking their heads. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matt, as we've both said, it's outside the scope of this thread, so perhaps it would have been best to leave it outside of this thread to begin with and perhaps it would be a good idea to stop now.</p>

<p>What kind of photographic tool it is and what kinds of results are showing up seems photography-related. They've got potential to be used creatively and expressively. If they become or are discussed as merely another wonder of technology, much akin to the driving force behind ever increasingly-sharp lenses, I'll lose interest quickly. Much remains to be seen.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It is indeed just in its infancy. Another thread earlier today had a new-ish photographer grappling with how to take a photograph of 700 church members, complete with the building in the background. It won't be long now (pending some reversal of fortune on various bans) before the first instinct, rather than the exotic-sounding strategy, is to send the camera up on a nice easy to use robot acting like a very tall tripod. That won't be like the sharper/est lens conversations, it will be more about what types of situations a photographer might even consider approaching - complete with lots technical but also social considerations.<br /><br />As for the politics (which are intimately involved in all of this, right now), I'm not here for a debate. But I think that anyone looking to test the waters in this area, or looking to intelligently consume and comment upon these things as they are now hitting us daily in the news, needs to understand the chaotic legal/regulatory landscape and which forces are pushing it back and forth.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"No problem here seeing thoughtful regulations put in place. A major accident caused by a malfunctioning drone will likely speed that up."</p>

<p>No, I am, like some others, not confident that our legislators nor the almost completely unfettered bureaucratic regulators, nor the White House, will likely respond to a major accident with thoughtful regulations. Thoughtful regulations should be being developed in a timely fashion now. A major accident will be a much more likely trigger of needless or burdensome yet ineffective regulations.</p>

<p>Personally, I think there are several camps with important stakes in this. One is the recreational RC model aircraft world. The advance in the area of stable helicopter like devices is indeed impressive. But rc aircraft with the ability to fly around and hurt people accidentally or even to take pictures isn't a new development, just one that hasn't been all that exploited in ways that might have privacy implications. A perfect storm, perhaps, video and digital photography equipment is a lot more effective and a lot smaller than similarly capable technologies of even just a few years ago. I'd expect responsible rc modelers don't want to be caught up in a regulatory firestorm, either. </p>

<p>What this technology may be doing is redefining or clarifying "reasonable" expectations of privacy. I recall the conflict over the coastal helicopter photography project that shot the whole California coast and greatly annoyed at least one very wealthy mansion dweller on the coast. What I don't think most people have known or thought through is that it's been possible for police or other aircraft, within reason and regulations to fly over anyone's property. Yet even so, the idea that one could be secure behind a wall or fence was also an idea in the laws. But local police departments probably didn't make (many) images of local folks sunbathing in their backyards and then proceed to publish them, either. Again, technology has advanced greatly recently. </p>

<p>The recent flap over images shot through open windows of apartment dwellers reminded people that windows were, windows. Now we have a technolgy that might make it easier to view through more windows than was easy or practical before.</p>

<p>OTOH, that, as in any number of other areas, technology has outstripped regulation and it's not going to be easy or possible to roll back the clock. Maybe we need common sense registration of drones. that should help.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>What city is this, they look like they have a pretty intense fireworks show ? </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Another incident involving a near-miss between a drone and a NYPD helicopter - two drone operators are charged with felony reckless endangerment.</p>

<p>The article also has an interesting explanation of the charges:<br /> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/two-drones-nearly-collide-with-nypd-helicopter-operators-arrested/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/two-drones-nearly-collide-with-nypd-helicopter-operators-arrested/</a></p>

<p>Edit: Details of the incident:<br>

<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/drone-hits-nypd-helicopter-2-men-arrested-article-1.1858159">http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/drone-hits-nypd-helicopter-2-men-arrested-article-1.1858159</a></p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>If you read the article, you'll see that felony recklessness endangerment will never be proved in this case or will be reversed on appeal. </p>

<p>While I favor reasonable uses of drones, fair and reasonable regulation just for drones is the best way to handle it. A drone operator should know when and where its use is allowed. Not that if by someone else's reasoning, his recreational use of a drone will place him in the potential positin and heavy legal costs of defending himself against a charge that could put him in jail for many years.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>The FAA is apparently looking into the fireworks fly-through:<br>

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/faa-investigating-fireworks-drone-flights/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/faa-investigating-fireworks-drone-flights/</a></p>

[tholte]

<p>I hope the FAA would delve in to more serious issues like over-worked air traffic controllers that hold the lives of hundreds of passengers in their hands every day and night. A little non-commercial drone flying through a Fourth of July fireworks display doesn't pose much of a threat to anyone. I have a single engine pilot's certification and, a little drone, hundreds of feet below legal airspace is little, or no threat to anyone.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>As a recreational user of a quad my first thought was to join my local model aero club which provides me with insurance when flying at the club field ... At home flying in my small bedroom an early flight nicked my finger as I fended it off after it came straight at me .... a freind accidentally started up his chopper on his workbench and nearly lost his eye<br>

So I am well aware of the damage it could cause and have no wish to loose either the quad of my possessions to pay a liability ... the chopper of an acquaintance flew off out of control, hopefully to ditch in the sea without causing any damage or injury.<br>

My local town council bans any r/c flying off its parks and reserves, ancient history pre-dating drones</p>