The use of drone cameras over heritage railways

So why are you getting so het up? Have you considered the chances of the scenarios you describe below occurring?

But they will still only use one frequency - why would they need more for such non safety critical operations.

But why would they need more than one or maybe two frequencies?

possibly, but how often and over what sort of area? and would that just happen to coincide with the location of the steam railway?

And was that interfering with 2.4Ghz? I don't recall anything in the news - which I would expect if 2.4Ghz stopped working over the area you mention.

Pretty much all RC 2.4Ghz equipement now has a basic failsafe which sets controls to a preset position on loss of signal. Any drone capable of carrying a camera will have one. The more complex drones which have waypoint navigation and return to base are unlikely to be used for videoing steam trains - unless of course the operator is working out of line of sight via headset and screen (which is presently illegal)

Quite honestly I doubt that anything I or any of the radio control fraternity can say will fully negate your statements, because you seem determined to pick the absolute worst of any situation and compound it with the absolute worst of all the other situations. I realise this is risk management, but the likelyhood of all the risks combining in that manner as vanishingly small. Using that principle, any activity, including tiddlywinks, could be made to look dangerous. I'll just get back to flying my planes and helicopters with others and not get het up about it.[/quote][/quote]

 

No great feeling either way on how drone use should be managed, but saw this, which just shows you can get some amazing footage with these new toys:

 

Never mind visitors using drones to record steam railways, the loco crew can now record themselves:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28178230

Seriously, apart from the spectacular views, would there be any mileage in using drone video recordings for training purposes? Route learning? Loco firing techniques perhaps?

Richard

 

You wouldn't want to crash land a light aircraft in the NVR car-park; it's far too small, hard, likely to contain large metal obstacles (you know, cars), and soft fleshy members of the species H. sapiens, whereas there are plenty of big open soft and bouncy flat fields nearby on the Nene floodplain. If someone tried to crash land a plane in the NVR car park they'd deserve a Darwin award.

 

http://www.canonrumors.com/u-s-announces-task-force-to-develop-drone-registry/

Likely to follow here I guess

 

The use of drones, however, has introduced security implications that no-one had considered whilst their uncontrolled use near military and commercial airfields has introduced an accident risk that has major implications for passenger safety. I'm not sure which will the UK will go in terms of restricting sales to licences personnel / bodies only or impose a strict regime of regulations for users BUT they do introduce major problems that have not been fully recognised.

 

In what way do drones create a passenger safety risk that was not already present with conventional radio controlled aircraft, which have been available to members of the public for at least as long as I have been alive?

The only issue I can see is that as such things become relatively cheaper and easier to control, there will be increasing numbers. But the risk posed by an individual drone is no more than that posed by an individual radio-controlled aeroplane or helicopter: probably less in fact, as they don't tend to fly so fast and often have software to bring them to earth in a controlled fashion in the event of an onboard failure.

As such, the above feels a bit like scare-mongering: I can't see why drones can't operate within the same existing regulatory framework as other radio-controlled aircraft.

Edit @The Saggin' Dragon said similar while I was typing

Tom

 

I understand that airports have expressed concern because whilst users of model aircraft have kept their models away from airports and flown them in recreation areas such as parks the users of drones have not been as considerate - especially when loaded with a camera to better observe the aircraft around airfields.

 

Quite - it is not that drones are new, but the way that lightweight remote controlled flying vehicles are now of a size, price and nature that makes them interesting to more than just model aircraft users. The culture of self-restraint that model aircraft owners have adhered to hasn't carried over to drone users, who are also using them in new ways that have different risks attached to them.

That doesn't mean that the instinctive reaction of the securocrats is right - in practice, heavy enforcement will mostly affect the relatively law abiding and leave the problem users relatively untouched. Meanwhile, the opportunities that the technology provides will be forfeited.

 

It's not just drones - HD action cameras that can fit in the palm of your hand have had a huge part to play in this.

The comparative stability and ease of control that drones offer compared to other RC flying machines, coupled with readily available cameras, has made them appealing to the mass market.

I remember just a couple of years ago, an RC helicopter owner trying to film some race cars. The idea was good, but the footage was rubbish as there was no stability in it. Only a year later, the DJI phantom came out and the world of aerial filming was made accessible to the consumer.

 

Has there been many documented incidents of spotters using drones? I've not seen any being used during any of my aircraft photting trips but admittedly I haven't been to every airport/airbase in the kingdom.

 

I'm a little puzzled by this. Surely if a plane is built to withstand multiple bird strikes, how could a strike by a relatively light object such as a drone cause a problem to a plane (talking big airliners here, as these seem to be the ones mentioned whenever "close calls" with drones are reported)?

 

I have smacked into a red kite while tootling along at 90 knots and it dented the leading edge of the wing. Birds have also caused large turbofans to be shut down, google for the video of the 757 at Manchester that turn back after ingesting a crow while taking off. Even a minor bird strike requires the engine to have an expensive boroscope inspection for damaged or missing turbine blades. The smell of roast chicken in the cockpit is a bit unpleasant. Pilots don't need plastic toys to deal with too.

 

Whilst taking the point querying whether there have actually been instances reported of camera drones being used near airports, surely the big difference between RC model aircraft and drones is that the point of the latter is that they carry a camera and hence will be used near to things the owner wants to film. RC model aircraft don't exist to film things, so there won't be similar temptation to use them near to other moving objects.

Steven

 

Having recently nearly been hit by a drone, that then proceeded to deposit itself in the River Severn whilst it was being used to film by a 'professional' company, I would suggest that nobody is immune to failures- this particular example had a sudden power loss/battery failure and failed to return to its 'base' position, luckily narrowly missing all who were present.

The guy who was operating it- his face was an absolute picture!

In fact in general myself and my father have not had a good record with radio controlled 'stuff'- his Vauxhall Carlton was badly damaged in the 80s when an RC model plane crashed into the windscreen whilst it was parked watching a model aircraft display. I also incurred some sore bruises and a burn on my hand when a friends nitro-fuelled radio controlled car lost control, rolled over and crashed into my legs, before setting itself on fire........

I think I am best kept away from the things

Chris

 

On a more serious note, I can see drone pollution of Photos/videos becoming a real issue from now on; looks like we will have to stock up on inexpensive mini-drones as sacrificial "Reapers" to knock them out of the sky.

Cheers,

Alan

 

An inexpensive second hand product from the Birmingham Small Arms factory would be just as effective, and cheaper - And much more satisfying to use...!

Richard.