407 and drone close call

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by netstruggler

Not really. They delete static elements (eg the camera support) from the image and fill in the picture behind using footage from a separate lens, much like how we avoid seeing our own nose most of the time.

So if the skid enters an area of lens coverage like that it could disappear for a few frames until it moves out again as it would if something entered the frame in the area of the camera support then?

[212man]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

So if the skid enters an area of lens coverage like that it could disappear for a few frames until it moves out again as it would if something entered the frame in the area of the camera support then?

it’s certainly in most of the frames!

[MechEngr]

Originally Posted by albatross

Could we all just agree that flying a drone where you should not is a bad thing?

We could if it was always a bad thing. With mid-air after mid-air from "See and Avoid" and fatality after fatality one might conclude that multi-rotor drones aren't ever a bad thing in the grand scheme, having been involved in zero fatalities in 50+ years of hobby use. So far there has been one incident, between a military helicopter and a drone that resulted in minor (recognizably costly) damage to the helicopter, six years ago. This with literally tens of millions of multi-rotor drones being sold in the US.

The hobby side has begged the FAA to require ADS-B Out on all manned aircraft, including powered parafoils, but the FAA has refused, in spite of paying aircraft owners a rebate on such systems. The system the FAA has pushed onto drone operators is insufficient to alert manned aircraft operators. Such is regulation.

[Copterdoc]

Wow, that’s crazy