The use of drone cameras over heritage railways

Much as I love the Lightning, and even now it would outpace many a modern fighter, it's not banned because it was noisy, but because even with the full resources of the RAF available it proved incredibly tricky to stop them falling out of the sky - there are an awful lot of them parked in the North Sea...

 

Some remote control (RC) links may utilise digital technology but that won't exclude them from radio interference from other drone RC units or the other services which also use the 2.4GHz band. These other services include (and are not limited to) WiFi, Bluetooth, domestic TV and CCTV video links, wireless doorbells, outdoor weather stations, and (high power) amateur radio.

Have a go at building one yourself. It looks simple enough: http://www.qrz.ru/schemes/contribute/security/jammers/drone-jammer.pdf




Chris

 

Except the F2/F2A variant, they were the least accident prone of the lot.

 

If a drone, or any other aircraft, is causing a nuisance or danger, you should contact the police, local authority or the CAA, who deal with this sort of thing all the time. If the drone operator holds a CAA licence, he risks losing it and being prosecuted. If not, he can still be prosecuted for causing a public nuisance and for not holding a CAA licence. The second part of your question is answered in Bean-counter's post #34 and my post 46.

I can't really understand the point of your argument. Video drones are brilliant little machines, fun to watch, fun to operate and they produce great photographic results, but there are obvious risks if they are used irresponsibly. I would have thought that it is in everyone's interest to try to prevent that. Before you and one or two others jump in with "what risks, they're harmless", let me remind you that the CAA don't agree with you and, according to my drone pilot friend, the training and the rules that you have to accept in order to get a licence are quite rigorous.

 

You seem to be confusing me with someone who uses a drone - I don't.

 

And what happens if the interference is such that the entire frequency band is unusable and your RC system cannot identify and change to a usable path?

Chris

 

Do we see frequent reports of errant RC aircraft causing mayhem and injury? No. A number of airshows have an RC element but in over 40 years of attending, I've seen just one incident where an aircraft "escaped" its controller and that was when RC was far less developed than it is today. So do RC planes etc. pose a danger? Yes. How much of a danger? Not a lot. The reaction of some on here is typical of when something new comes along. "Let's ban it."

 

My understanding is that most drones on the market today are programmed to automatically return direct to their point of take off if the drone detects that it has lost contact with its controller. So the risk that a drone could fly off in a random direction until it runs out of battery life and then crash is low.

Tom

 

Depends if you can afford the gizmo to do this. Cheaper ones don't return to base automatically, but they are perhaps less likely to be used for video work.

 

Bit bigger than a drone but I don't hear anyone here calling for a ban.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pton-road-causing-traffic-mayhem-9556212.html

 

As my father (a glider pilot) always remarks, "in a balloon, every landing is a crash landing", despite the strenuous denials to the contrary!

Tom

 

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

 

I believe there are 160 individual channels in the 2.4 Ghz spectrum used for this sort of thing. Firstly, equipment such as wifi, doorbells etc use only one frequency. They have no need for redundancy in the connection. I'm not sure amateur radio even use 2.4 Ghz, though even if they did, they are limited in power and only require one frequency to talk to each other. I recall hearing that where something like 50 transmitters were in use in the USA at a RC fly in there were troubles getting the transmitters to talk to the receivers, using two channels each, but that's the sort of numbers needed. As to a complete blanket coverage, I'm not sure what could cause it, apart from the drone jammer mentioned above - assuming it works like that. Bear in mind if the band is completely swamped the drone won't even start, and if the band is swamped during flight, there are such things as failsafes. Some include return to base, others just reduce flight power and hold attitude until the drone lands. Drones do have three, or more, axis stability built in.

Ah, I hear you say, but what if someone lets off a nuclear weapon and the EMP scrambles the electronics completely!!

Well, I reckon we have bigger problems than a loose drone.....

 

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't think that anyone here is calling for a ban on video drones either, my argument is simply that there should be some control of their use around heritage railways.
As to balloons, their use in this country is strictly regulated and we have not seen here the kind of horrors that have occurred in recent years in Kenya, New Zealand, etc.
They can still be fairly dodgy though; some years ago I was driving a tractor on my farm in Suffolk when a balloon "landed" about 100 yds. from me and was dragged across the field by the wind, missing me by 20 feet. The basket them overturned, depositing the occupants on the concrete perimeter track of the adjacent airfield, though, fortunately, there were no injuries beyond cuts and bruises. I was surprised to find that the balloonists were soaking wet and the basket was covered with duckweed. Apparently, they had previously tried to land on a grassy clearing in a wood, which turned out to be a weed-covered pond! Sorry about going o/t, but I thought you might like it.

 

A mate of mine had a balloon flight and had a similar hairy landing. Not that unusual it would seem.

 

I suspect that drones are less likely to be a nuisance to heritage railways than trespassing gricers.

However as to r/c model aircraft as a generality I tend to have that poem buzzing around at the back of my mind:-
"I shot an arrow in the air,
it came to earth I know not where".

P.H.

 

I agree. I'm not arguing the reliability of model aircraft or amateur drone operation. It's not a case of it will happen, it's a case of it could happen. And where have I suggested that flying your aircraft/drones should be banned?

If only they did, but the fact is that the UK is being bombarded by numerous non-compliant products imported mainly from the Far East that are manufactured for use in other countries who have different standards and specifications.

In the UK, licensed amateur radio operators can use any frequency between 2.31 to 2.45 GHz to transmit on all the usual modes including voice, television, and high speed data. Maximum permitted power is 400 watts. Compare that to your signal which is a fraction of 1 watt.

Generally radio interference will not be caused by another low power RC system. At 2.4GHz, interference is more likely to originate from services such as airport radar systems, point to point microwave links, industrial, medical or scientific equipment, or high power broadcast television transmitters. It is all capable of emitting spurious radiation when it goes faulty.

As to "blanket coverage", how about for example a faulty high power BBC transmitter with a misaligned class 'D' amplifier stage. This was causing the transmitter to radiate spurious noise that was obliterating wireless communication across a broad frequency spectrum over a wide area including England, Holland, Belgium and Northern France.

What are the "failsafes" you mention and do they exist on each and every model produced by each manufacturer?


Chris

 

Chris,
Rather than quote your whole post, Id like to point out that I fly neither RC aircraft nor drones so have no vested interest in their operation.

 

Hmmm ... that sounds like an excellent argument for the need to have a supra-national body that can set and then enforce international standards and specifications to prevent problems caused by such non-compliance.

If only I could think of what we could call such a body ...

Tom