Good thinking Wes, but the GIS sys here still shows my portable lawn building that the hurricane got a few years ago.Originally Posted by WLIU
Good thinking Wes, but the GIS sys here still shows my portable lawn building that the hurricane got a few years ago.
Whoo boy, drone season starts sept 1st
I just assumed someone was 'time sense challenged'. Whther this summer or after 2015 when Congress said UAV aircraft have to be "integrated" into the national airspace... not much difference. Only 15 months or so - depending on what some would call "summer" and others would call "integrated". Word splitting. But, you're right. Mainstream media is using the 2020 figure for their benchmark.
As a pilot, the UAV issue is really a non-issue - provided that a UAV using an airfield has an operator announcing positions when in the pattern, and fly the pattern.
I've got no real problems with NORDO - our field has a number of folks who fly mute - but UAV's may be hard to spot and should always fly the pattern so we'll have an idea of where to look.
The large scale model aircraft guys seem to have a handle on how to do it, though, and if they can fly their planes (some of which are pretty darned big) without much ado the UAV folks shouldn't cause much of a problem for us.
From a privacy standpoint, I don't see any difference between a UAV flying over my house and any other aircraft. Other than they're not sexy like a regular
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Gday chaps,Here in Aussie,if you want to use a UAV in a commercial function then the operator has to be licensed to fly the thing.My brothers are trying to get the shark patrol contract here in Perth.These machines can be programmed to fly to GPS points and when the battery is at a set low point it will fly home.There are also the power line inspection contracts.It is a growth industry,so much potential. Cheers Ross
It's a question of probability, really. The cops aren't going to park a Jetranger over your house without a serious justification for the expense involved. But if it just cost them $5 an hour....?
One wants to trust the police department, of course, but there are enough examples where power has been abused, both by individuals and by the organizations themselves. Rajneesh, Oregon, for example.
Ron Wanttaja
There are actually two growth industries about to take off here. The UAV vendors are marketing to municipalities. And here in the US, the constitutional lawyers are about to get a windfall. In the US there is the little constitutional detail about prohibitions on governmental bodies conducting something that can be categorized as a "search" without a clear and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed (please see Terry v Ohio). You and I can fly an RC model around with a video camera as civilians, but when a governmental body starts doing that, the legal "bar" is raised a long way. The law tends to lag behind technology, so we have legal precedent that a judge, who has the status as a "neutral" party, typically has to approve a governmental body peeking over your fence, into your house, listening to your communications, etc. So the use of UAVs will quickly be challenged and likely made subject to similar restriction and oversight. The american tradition, unlike many countries, presumes that government must keep its nose out of the business of the citizens (note - not subjects) unless there is a compelling governmental interest.
What we are starting to see as a trend is that municipalities, and possibly soon states, are adopting ordinances that forbid the purchase and operation of UAV's by their law enforcement departments. The use of UAV's is different than using aerial or satelite photos for land assessments as UAV's show intimate detail of your activities now whereas the older technologies employed at the town, city, and state level, only provide a grosser, less detailed, picture of your property at a single point in time. There is a legal difference between a remote observation and active surveillance. And they cost money for acquisition, training, and maintenance, so it is easy for a municipality with a tight budget to listen to its concerned citizens and refuse to spend those $$, or even to accept grant $$.
The future will be interesting. I suspect that the lawyers will make more $$ than the UAV companies. But hey, you and I pay the bill for both sides through our tax $$ so grab some popcorn, put your feet up, and enjoy the show.
Best of luck,
Wes
Wait til they reduce the "hummingbird" drone to fly size. They could just park one near your front door and when you walk out it just buzzes in! Talk about a business opportunity, just think what the porn industry will do with this gadget!
Joe
I saw on tv, L A I think, that a real estate broker had a little model airplane type "drone" with a camera so his "high end clients" could see properties over a broad area from his office without having to drive for hours. I don't know how common this is or, if it really works or is just a Hollywood type story.
I am not a RC model type guy, but I thought that the range that you could control them was pretty limited.
What real estate agents are doing is visiting a property to take still and video, inside and out. They take that back to the office to give prospective buyers a "virtual tour". Some of these virtual tours are posted on the real estate broker's web site. An RC aircraft will certainly facilitate this.
The RC aircraft community is taking advantage of blue tooth technology to connect the pilot to the aircraft. Eliminates the old issues of two pilots on the same frequency with two aircraft and causing expensive crashes. Not too hard to move from short distance blue tooth technology to Wifi and cell phone connection. But I think what I described in the first paragraph is what you have heard about.
In high tech, change is constant. There will be more new stuff tomorrow.
Wes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote