Drones - the future
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drone operators must ensure they operate their drone in a manner that will not be a hazard to another aircraft in flight or in a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
A drone is not allowed to fly farther than 300 metres from its operator and it must be in visible sight to its operator; That makes it pretty useless for things like crop surveilance.
Perhaps Irish fields are smaller than Californian fields?
A drone is not allowed to fly farther than 300 metres from its operator and it must be in visible sight to its operator; That makes it pretty useless for things like crop surveilance.
Perhaps Irish fields are smaller than Californian fields?
In the UK you are restricted to VLOS (in effect about 500m) and 400ft altitude. However, you can apply to the CAA for dispensation to operate outside these restrictions provided you have good reason to do so and an Ops Manual that shows how you're going to ensure safety.
I've worked with everything from Black Hornet to Reaper; although this sounds a bit like the NRA re handguns, the problem is not the UAV per se, but the person(s) that operate it. The guys that are professional are not the ones you need to worry about. It's the naive or genuinely nefarious (e.g. paparazzi) who simply don't understand or deliberately ignore the regulations that are the greatest hazard.
Until a rogue operator actually kills someone very little will be done. The problem is very similar to mid air collision; there are those that think that TAS, TCAS and ADS-B will solve it - conveniently forgetting that a large number of air users in open FIR don't have transponders. The answer, for both manned and unmanned aircraft, is passive/active collision warning systems.....
I've worked with everything from Black Hornet to Reaper; although this sounds a bit like the NRA re handguns, the problem is not the UAV per se, but the person(s) that operate it. The guys that are professional are not the ones you need to worry about. It's the naive or genuinely nefarious (e.g. paparazzi) who simply don't understand or deliberately ignore the regulations that are the greatest hazard.
Until a rogue operator actually kills someone very little will be done. The problem is very similar to mid air collision; there are those that think that TAS, TCAS and ADS-B will solve it - conveniently forgetting that a large number of air users in open FIR don't have transponders. The answer, for both manned and unmanned aircraft, is passive/active collision warning systems.....
The whole situation is beset with confusion and even that failure to engender a common set of standards is simply a symptom
So who is going to enforce all this well meaning guidance? Not people behind desks. But who else is there with the knowledge, the power, or even a bit of interest?
My guess is no one until a lot of people are hurt.
Aside from the people deliberately killed a fair number have already died - it's just that I guess they were the 'wrong' ones and as a result those deaths were largely ignored.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As have Lufthansa who have now opened a Drone arm of their aerial services, indeed they have teamed up with one of the big manufacturers. Thou they seem to be very media shy about it.
https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/pr...icle/3918.html
https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/pr...icle/3918.html
Drone hits airliner
Who could see this one coming........
Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News
Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News
Who could see this one coming........
Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News
Drone hits British Airways plane approaching Heathrow Airport - BBC News
Oops...
PDR
Drones edging out helicopter film pilots, videographers
Drones cheaper, can go places, get shots helicopters can't, but there's a place for both in the film biz
By Haydn Watters, CBC News Posted: Sep 04, 2017 11:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 04, 2017 12:42 PM ET
Drones cheaper, can go places, get shots helicopters can't, but there's a place for both in the film biz
By Haydn Watters, CBC News Posted: Sep 04, 2017 11:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 04, 2017 12:42 PM ET
Transport Canada thought he couldn't do it. But Jim Filippone was eager to fly a helicopter through downtown Vancouver, squeezing between all of the soaring glass towers on Georgia Street.
After all, the film needed it.
He got the OK after plotting it out with his safety co-ordinator (and wife) Wendy, pledging to fly with two engines and stick to the yellow line in the middle of the road.
Filippone hovered his helicopter just above the street lamps, zooming up and down the road until the cameras got what they needed. He did it again for the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day, this time at night with no light.
Filippone's precision made him the go-to pilot for these low-level helicopter shots. But drones, which can get the same shot at a sliver of the price, have forced the Filippones out of business after more than 30 years and 13,800 hours in the air.
Jim Filippone flew helicopters for films and television shows for more than 30 years. You can even spot him in the opening for the old CBC show Danger Bay, for which he once had to don this blond wig. (Jim Filippone)
"We'd call up people, production managers, and we would say, 'Oh hey do you have any aerials on the show?' ... every time they say yes, we would have a job. They would hire us. But it's, 'Oh yeah, we have an aerial but we're using a drone,'" he said.
The couple worked on the X-Men movies, Tron: Legacy and the old CBC show Danger Bay, among many others.
"We've gone into retirement because of this," Filippone said about the drones bumping out his work.
'Tipping point' for drones
The drone has stolen gigs and taken a hit on Canada's small but mighty pool of film pilots and aerial videographers.
It can squeeze into tight spaces and get shots the helicopter can't — quicker, without much setup, and clad with high-quality cameras. There's also less at stake if something goes wrong. Helicopter crashes have killed more than 30 people on film and TV sets since 1980, according to Deadline.com.
But the biggest drone draw may be the price point. Drones are substantially cheaper to fly for film — even when decked out with fancy equipment.
The cheaper price has won Chris Bacik a bunch of film jobs — he has flown his drones for Hollywood movies and hit TV shows like Orphan Black and The Handmaid's Tale.
"When we get the opportunity to show these [to] people, their eyes just light up," he said of drones.
Bacik runs Sky Eye Media in Midhurst, near Barrie, Ont. He works out of his parents' garage, packed tight with shelves of drones. Some are as small as tubs of margarine, others as big as office chairs, with tentacle-like arms to help it fly.
"Finally there's been this tipping point in last 12 months or so now where we are shooting twice a week, and now we've become profitable and things are just escalating," he said.
"We've definitely come across a couple of helicopter operators that aren't as friendly to us because they realize yes, we're here to stay and we are affecting the way they do business."
'You can't take it for granted'
Still, the helicopter has its advantages.
It can fly faster, longer and higher than any drone can, able to get those striking big-city and mountain shots. The helicopter works in any weather, whereas drones can't fly in the wind. And some drone pilots fear Transport Canada's proposed changes to drone rules, which could crack down on what they fly right now.
All this is helping helicopter cameraman Chris Chanda stay airborne. He has been filming from above for 23 years, and now runs Aerial Camera Operations.
"From our side of the fence, we think [drones are] a great tool, but they're certainly not capable of the full-on production value we can provide," he said.
"It's kind of like giving your kid a skateboard and telling him to go play on the highway."
But he too admits he's lost some business to drones, something he thought would never happen.
As technology gets better, industry experts predict it won't be long before drones can do what helicopters can — with longer and higher flights and even better, more stable aerial shots coming soon.
"You can't take it for granted," said Chanda, who has considered adding drones to his fleet. "You certainly can't say no to advancing technology."
Others, like Filippone, want nothing to do with drones. He likens flying one to playing a video game.
"I'm the worst video-game operator in the world. We'll leave those to the kids."
Price points: Drone vs. helicopter
Here's what CBC News was quoted for a helicopter film shoot with Chanda's Aerial Camera Operations and a drone film shoot with Bacik's Sky Eye Media.
Helicopter: Chanda said a twin turbine helicopter is needed for film-style shoots ($2350/hr). Plus a full day on the camera for prep/install/shoot adds another $5,750.
Drone: Bacik flies with three operators (a pilot, camera operator and safety person), charging $1,600 for eight hours. The rental price for one of Bacik's mid-sized drones is $1,800/day. Bacik said productions usually provide their own camera and lenses, but others rent from him, which costs $1,500-$2,500/day.
After all, the film needed it.
He got the OK after plotting it out with his safety co-ordinator (and wife) Wendy, pledging to fly with two engines and stick to the yellow line in the middle of the road.
Filippone hovered his helicopter just above the street lamps, zooming up and down the road until the cameras got what they needed. He did it again for the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day, this time at night with no light.
Filippone's precision made him the go-to pilot for these low-level helicopter shots. But drones, which can get the same shot at a sliver of the price, have forced the Filippones out of business after more than 30 years and 13,800 hours in the air.
Jim Filippone flew helicopters for films and television shows for more than 30 years. You can even spot him in the opening for the old CBC show Danger Bay, for which he once had to don this blond wig. (Jim Filippone)
"We'd call up people, production managers, and we would say, 'Oh hey do you have any aerials on the show?' ... every time they say yes, we would have a job. They would hire us. But it's, 'Oh yeah, we have an aerial but we're using a drone,'" he said.
The couple worked on the X-Men movies, Tron: Legacy and the old CBC show Danger Bay, among many others.
"We've gone into retirement because of this," Filippone said about the drones bumping out his work.
'Tipping point' for drones
The drone has stolen gigs and taken a hit on Canada's small but mighty pool of film pilots and aerial videographers.
It can squeeze into tight spaces and get shots the helicopter can't — quicker, without much setup, and clad with high-quality cameras. There's also less at stake if something goes wrong. Helicopter crashes have killed more than 30 people on film and TV sets since 1980, according to Deadline.com.
But the biggest drone draw may be the price point. Drones are substantially cheaper to fly for film — even when decked out with fancy equipment.
The cheaper price has won Chris Bacik a bunch of film jobs — he has flown his drones for Hollywood movies and hit TV shows like Orphan Black and The Handmaid's Tale.
"When we get the opportunity to show these [to] people, their eyes just light up," he said of drones.
Bacik runs Sky Eye Media in Midhurst, near Barrie, Ont. He works out of his parents' garage, packed tight with shelves of drones. Some are as small as tubs of margarine, others as big as office chairs, with tentacle-like arms to help it fly.
"Finally there's been this tipping point in last 12 months or so now where we are shooting twice a week, and now we've become profitable and things are just escalating," he said.
"We've definitely come across a couple of helicopter operators that aren't as friendly to us because they realize yes, we're here to stay and we are affecting the way they do business."
'You can't take it for granted'
Still, the helicopter has its advantages.
It can fly faster, longer and higher than any drone can, able to get those striking big-city and mountain shots. The helicopter works in any weather, whereas drones can't fly in the wind. And some drone pilots fear Transport Canada's proposed changes to drone rules, which could crack down on what they fly right now.
All this is helping helicopter cameraman Chris Chanda stay airborne. He has been filming from above for 23 years, and now runs Aerial Camera Operations.
"From our side of the fence, we think [drones are] a great tool, but they're certainly not capable of the full-on production value we can provide," he said.
"It's kind of like giving your kid a skateboard and telling him to go play on the highway."
But he too admits he's lost some business to drones, something he thought would never happen.
As technology gets better, industry experts predict it won't be long before drones can do what helicopters can — with longer and higher flights and even better, more stable aerial shots coming soon.
"You can't take it for granted," said Chanda, who has considered adding drones to his fleet. "You certainly can't say no to advancing technology."
Others, like Filippone, want nothing to do with drones. He likens flying one to playing a video game.
"I'm the worst video-game operator in the world. We'll leave those to the kids."
Price points: Drone vs. helicopter
Here's what CBC News was quoted for a helicopter film shoot with Chanda's Aerial Camera Operations and a drone film shoot with Bacik's Sky Eye Media.
Helicopter: Chanda said a twin turbine helicopter is needed for film-style shoots ($2350/hr). Plus a full day on the camera for prep/install/shoot adds another $5,750.
Drone: Bacik flies with three operators (a pilot, camera operator and safety person), charging $1,600 for eight hours. The rental price for one of Bacik's mid-sized drones is $1,800/day. Bacik said productions usually provide their own camera and lenses, but others rent from him, which costs $1,500-$2,500/day.
Impressive TV pics of the squirrel flying below horizon level (taken from a cherry picker) during yesterday's Formula 1 at Monza.
Throughout the race they appeared to be flying lower than at other F1 races, pictures were very dynamic!
Mjb
Throughout the race they appeared to be flying lower than at other F1 races, pictures were very dynamic!
Mjb
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big local helicopter services company in my neck of the woods has made UAS operations an integral part of their company and service portfolio. They saw the handwriting on the wall and appear dedicated to maintaining ownership of the skies around here, whatever it takes. Of course they will have a lot more competition in the UAS department.
In the US you can already see the industry is moving towards self-regulation and self-certification well beyond the vestigial FAA Remote Pilot certificate. Much like the SCUBA diving and skydiving industries have done. This is how big companies will control the marketplace and attempt to drive the small fry out.
"So Mr. Smith, do all of your pilots at the Tiny UAS Company have an Industry Awesomeness certification? Do you carry $4M in liability insurance? No? Too bad, so sad, we're going to go with Giant UAS Company even though they are a little more money."
In the US you can already see the industry is moving towards self-regulation and self-certification well beyond the vestigial FAA Remote Pilot certificate. Much like the SCUBA diving and skydiving industries have done. This is how big companies will control the marketplace and attempt to drive the small fry out.
"So Mr. Smith, do all of your pilots at the Tiny UAS Company have an Industry Awesomeness certification? Do you carry $4M in liability insurance? No? Too bad, so sad, we're going to go with Giant UAS Company even though they are a little more money."
Drones have a great future......
......in all sorts of sectors.
Just like the chopper - they are a tool and not the only solution.
I was surprised and secretly delighted to discover that the aerials over the beach in the recent 'Dunkirk' movie with the Spitfire executing the longest dead-stick landing in aviation history (akin to the slowest countdown device in every James Bond movie) were done by chopper - (GB Helicopters- no relationship)
But like every tool - if handled by a 'tool'
the outcome can be unpredictable and dangerous.
I'm a chopper puke to the core but can see the advantages of Drones/UAVs/UASs - especially within a regulatory environment which understands them.
Just like the chopper - they are a tool and not the only solution.
I was surprised and secretly delighted to discover that the aerials over the beach in the recent 'Dunkirk' movie with the Spitfire executing the longest dead-stick landing in aviation history (akin to the slowest countdown device in every James Bond movie) were done by chopper - (GB Helicopters- no relationship)
But like every tool - if handled by a 'tool'
the outcome can be unpredictable and dangerous.
I'm a chopper puke to the core but can see the advantages of Drones/UAVs/UASs - especially within a regulatory environment which understands them.
The post from Phoinix was a link to a story. I just happened to see this on my television late-night newscast. Was surprised to not hear of it earlier. If the news was correct, the UAV was at 500AGL, illegally high. There was a close-up still shot showing damage to the Blackhawk, I'm guessing near the windscreen frame, but hard to tell (though I'm sure a -60 expert could readily tell). Little of the machine recovered, I hope it's enough to lead to the perpetrator, followed by serious prosecution. It's a federal offense to LASER an aircraft, I hope the penalties are severe for these mid-air collisions to make an example or two of the idiots flyers.
The recent NYC incident also occurred while a Presidential TFR was in place. The flight restrictions encompassed the area where the collision occurred, so the drone should have never been flying to begin with.
There is still a mass of delusion associated with drones and what they can and cannot do and sadly some of the public services are promoting the tosh.
At best a small quad Drone is a free flying CCTV to which you can add an umbilical to extend its time of flight but not its range. It can only rarely be considered an instant reaction tool..... chasing baddies across fields [as being promoted recently by some operators] is the stuff of dreams or press set-peices. Generally they are never going to be in the right place at the right time with the machine ready to fly unless its a pre-programmed sting or a stake-out.
The real negative is that for the baddies of all descriptions they can carry nasty or prohibited stuff across the heads of security and crowds. But you can throw such stuff over such barriers anyway so its not really new.
Nothing up and out there now [the future may change of course] will replace a helicopter in other than the persistent surveillance or photographic role and yet there is a danger that all of us are talking up the technology prematurely.
I do not recall Rotorheads ever previously having threads on SLR cameras, tripods, CCTV, let alone balls and hand-grenades and yet that is what is apparently going on here. A recent NPCC report was talking about having 'big' drones circling cities watching over everyone...... There are more pressing needs, that is years off and probably Star Wars anyway.
One to watch but its still an orange box upon which to stand and look over the wall...
At best a small quad Drone is a free flying CCTV to which you can add an umbilical to extend its time of flight but not its range. It can only rarely be considered an instant reaction tool..... chasing baddies across fields [as being promoted recently by some operators] is the stuff of dreams or press set-peices. Generally they are never going to be in the right place at the right time with the machine ready to fly unless its a pre-programmed sting or a stake-out.
The real negative is that for the baddies of all descriptions they can carry nasty or prohibited stuff across the heads of security and crowds. But you can throw such stuff over such barriers anyway so its not really new.
Nothing up and out there now [the future may change of course] will replace a helicopter in other than the persistent surveillance or photographic role and yet there is a danger that all of us are talking up the technology prematurely.
I do not recall Rotorheads ever previously having threads on SLR cameras, tripods, CCTV, let alone balls and hand-grenades and yet that is what is apparently going on here. A recent NPCC report was talking about having 'big' drones circling cities watching over everyone...... There are more pressing needs, that is years off and probably Star Wars anyway.
One to watch but its still an orange box upon which to stand and look over the wall...
At best a small quad Drone is a free flying CCTV to which you can add an umbilical to extend its time of flight but not its range. It can only rarely be considered an instant reaction tool..... chasing baddies across fields [as being promoted recently by some operators] is the stuff of dreams or press set-peices. Generally they are never going to be in the right place at the right time with the machine ready to fly unless its a pre-programmed sting or a stake-out.
[...]
Nothing up and out there now [the future may change of course] will replace a helicopter in other than the persistent surveillance or photographic role and yet there is a danger that all of us are talking up the technology prematurely.
[...]
Nothing up and out there now [the future may change of course] will replace a helicopter in other than the persistent surveillance or photographic role and yet there is a danger that all of us are talking up the technology prematurely.
Drones are also being used in the cinema world in roles unsuited for any other platform, and keeping pilots from performing more and more risky flights. They can carry the same cameras we put in helicopter gimbals, but fly in smaller places and require less logistical ground support.
Your comments may be directed solely at Police/LE use, but even still, the ability for even the smallest department to have a trained officer with a FLIR-equipped drone in their trunk for finding missing persons or suspects hiding in the woods is a huge advantage. It's enabling capabilities at a price point that's a fraction of a fraction of helicopters. While the capabilities may not be the same, it would be extremely short-sighted to write off drones wholesale at this point.