Drone journalism takes off

Focused

Well-known member
There is another thread on this topic that has some excellent arguments.

The FAA just ticks me off. Make that the government in general. Bureaucratic paperwork is preventing business growth in this country and this is a direct example on our industry.

The rules state this RC aerial photography are this:
Keep it under 400 feet
Must maintain line of sight
Stay away from people
Not for commercial purposes

I had seen a demo of a copter platform and would have loved to hire them in to help with an industrial shoot. We we shooting crushing equipment in a mine that was a half mile long. Getting high enough to see the operations footprint was impossible with out charting a plane so the shot was cut from the script. Getting the RC guys in there would have had a multiplier effect would have been in the multiple millions if the end customers could have bought the crushing equipment knowing the size of footprint.

Look, I get it. The airways have to be safe. RC clubs are already given space far away from anything that would cause a problem. As soon as they strap a GoPro on their vehicle, it is technically a DRONE and subject to the above rules. If I strap a GoPro on a RC plane and get charge to fly over someone's property (real estate survey, checking access roads, ect.) it is illegal and punishable with $10K in fines plus jail time.

Explain to me what I did that was so different, and illegal, compared to what the hobbyist did?

Apparently the FAA rules are being reconsidered thanks to lobbying by other industries that want to use UAVs to monitor things like pipelines for oil and gas transportation. These UVA's are much more complex and range in the hundreds of pounds. Like the real thing without the missiles. The new rules will not be written until 2015.

I am really not impressed by the classifications and result the FAA is giving us. It's all red tape. I could be in the air and shooting tomorrow but will have to wait 3 years to see if my preferred method of capturing video is legal in my county. The way it's going, its not looking good.

Sure, I understand privacy issues of flying over your neighbor's house to check out the pool. Simple. Don't do that. But for legitimate business purposes such as flying over a stadium for the architect before it's filled with people seems like a service that could be markets and sold. Why and how is the FAA involved in regulating this exchange? If anyone it should be the Dept of Commerce or handed down to a state or city level, not a national no fly zone.


There. I feel better.
 

Ben Longden

Well-known member
Its another usefull tool to get vision without great expense and enhance a story.

NINE used one at Christmas Island (A refugee 'processing' centre) after the predicable refusal of entry at the gate - even though the Canberra office had okayed the visit.

What I love is the sheer over reaction of the red tape merchants involved and the bureaucrats who get hot under the collar when they are busted doing something not quite right.

"its a prohibited airspace" was the comment from one (Oz only has ONE prohibited airspace, and thats at the Pine Gap CIA satellite base) "Illegal" was another... but no laws were broken.

Its the same sort of reaction I shake my head at when, like yesterday, filming a major wildfire, the idiot firefighter-in-a-suit said the news helo was "fanning the fire".

How? he was on the smoke side of the blaze, and above 500ft. His rotorwash would not have been felt, and if it was, it would have blown the fire back on itself.

Knee jerk reactions based on ignorance, a lack of common sense, and pig headedness.

Bring on the Drone. It can make a news story just great, when its too dangerous to be there in person, even a hundred metres away.
 

Terry E. Toller

Well-known member
drone

I have a couple of rc helicoptors. One is a honeybee that is electric and only cost a couple of hundred dollars. It has all sorts of power and lifts a small camera with built in DVR with no problem. I like to fly it when my dog is running through a field chasing rabbits. It actually gets pretty good video but not close to HD... It is fun to fly and I have thought several times that it would be great when the cops hold the media back a couple of blocks. In fact, it would be very useful in Las Vegas where the cops are the most abusive cops in the world. Problem there would be, with the record of the metro police, they would see someone with a remote and just shoot them to death claiming they feared for their life...
 

BluesCam

Well-known member
They are used at some Civil War re-enactments. I would hate to see one crash at an event like that.
 

svp

Well-known member
I see both sides of this. On one hand, we should be able to operate an RC chopper/plane with a camera for personal use without fear of fines or jail. However, when it comes to commercial use I'm all for requiring training and an operators license. The reason is simple, they can be dangerous. I don't want stations sending out a 22 year old, fresh out of college, know-it-all flying one of these over a stadium or active scene with little to no training. Crashing one of these can kill people. You get a bunch of them in the air and that's a recipe for trouble. Someone needs much more training than is currently provided to run ENG/SNG trucks. That said, we know how the industry and bean counters are. If the industry is left to police itself, operators WILL NOT be properly trained. That's why I'm all for registration and licensing for commercial use.
 

Ruff

Well-known member
In a couple of years I am confident that we will be able to buy small machines that will not let the operator crash them.

It will be a different story then.
 

Tom Servo

Well-known member
The rules state this RC aerial photography are this:
Keep it under 400 feet
Must maintain line of sight
Stay away from people
Not for commercial purposes
I don't have a problem with any of those rules. Not even the last one. You know as well as I do that news managers are cheap as hell. It's not at all hard to imagine that every station out there is gonna want to trade in the chopper for drones, and hey, since they're so cheap, why not buy 5 per station and then hire the local RC airplane enthusiasts to fly 'em? So now we'll have a cloud of drones over any scene, not subject to air traffic control, not even visible to ATC radar, and being piloted by amateurs who have to keep an eye on the camera feed rather than the area around the drone. Collisions are inevitable and while they won't be as disastrous as 2 planes colliding, drones still weigh a not-insignificant amount and one falling on your head is going to ruin your day.

Business should not get to "grow" if that growth carries direct risk of harm.
 

svp

Well-known member
Tom,

I wouldn't have an issue if the FAA wanted to license one drone per station but no more than that.
 

Tom Servo

Well-known member
Tom,

I wouldn't have an issue if the FAA wanted to license one drone per station but no more than that.
Neither would I, assuming someone comes up with a way to keep 5 drones flying over the same house without crashing into each other. Quite a bit harder to judge positions from the ground than from the pilot seat of a chopper. I would also want it contingent on strict, government-supervised, maintenance and inspections of the drone. I don't want some cheap station running a drone that's falling apart just because they don't want to pay to keep the thing maintained.
 
It seems that the FAA system are life form reconsider gratitude to lobby by additional industry that desire to use UAVs to check belongings like pipelines for oil and gas transport.
 

svp

Well-known member
It should be pointed out that unless stations pay for a military grade drone (costing millions), the drones still can't be used in the manner most news choppers are used. You still couldn't cover a high speed chase or chase severe weather. The drone can only really fly in a 1000 ft radius of where the operator is on the ground so they'd only work at stationary scenes. That makes it another tool in the bag but definitely not s replacement for a chopper.
 

Lensmith

Member
It should be pointed out that unless stations pay for a military grade drone (costing millions), the drones still can't be used in the manner most news choppers are used. You still couldn't cover a high speed chase or chase severe weather. The drone can only really fly in a 1000 ft radius of where the operator is on the ground so they'd only work at stationary scenes. That makes it another tool in the bag but definitely not s replacement for a chopper.
True...but I can see it becoming the next generation GoPro style of news coverage, integrated into daily news.

I remember the days of everyone who used a station two-way radio or ran a live truck had to have an FCC license. Those days are long gone. For that reason, I don't see any long lasting license requirement for using drones in the future, despite the obvious hazards. Laws are only as good as they can be enforced and such a law would be darn near impossible to enforce over the long term.
 
Top