The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Other Tulsa Discussion => Topic started by: patric on October 02, 2014, 08:15:53 pm



Title: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 02, 2014, 08:15:53 pm
We have had a couple of discussions touch on RC multicopters or "personal drones,"
(http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=20672.0)
but with the interest some on TulsaNow have on the subject, I thought it deserved it's own thread.


For the uninitiated, here is an example of a remote-controlled copter: 

(http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/03/NN-DRONE-9-600x400.jpg)

...which should not be confused with a UAV or "drone," shown below:

(http://www.businessinsider.com/image/4b2a635f000000000021f0df/predator-b-drone.jpg)



There are some important differences; size is the most obvious.
One is used to take stunning pictures where it would otherwise be impossible, the other is used to intercept phone calls and follow people.
One can photograph volcanoes or wildfires to assist researchers or rescuers, while the other can count the people sleeping in a bed or incinerate buildings.

You get the picture.



This thread is intended for the former, and the hobbyists/scientists/journalists/photography nuts who fly them. 
So without further adieu... something as cool as it is creepy... a wearable camera that flies:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzqUsGMHE0#t=51[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 03, 2014, 12:43:15 pm
I want one of each!  The helicopter and the drone!!



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 03, 2014, 12:56:14 pm
I want one of each!  The helicopter and the drone!!



I have an RTF - Ready To Fly - Quadcopter (Phantom 2 Vision) and I'm in the process of finalizing the parts to start building a hexacopter (6 rotors) based on a Tarot FY680 Pro frame.  The build starts this week.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: sauerkraut on October 04, 2014, 09:51:08 am
They really are kewl but it must be remembered they are not toys.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 04, 2014, 10:20:36 am
They really are kewl but it must be remembered they are not toys.

Unlike you brain that you take out and play with frequently.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 04, 2014, 02:44:48 pm
Serious wow factor here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-shWVW1UBc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cICS9MtRRw[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on October 04, 2014, 03:35:10 pm
They really are kewl but it must be remembered they are not toys.

They are not a Tonka truck but they are toys for most.  I usually describe my (full size) airplane as a "toy".  It's a very serious toy that must be respected but since I don't have a business use for it, I consider it a toy.

DJI Phantom is listed at less than $500 at Hobby Town.  That's do-able as a toy.  See Patric's post of the volcanos.



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on October 04, 2014, 05:15:26 pm
They are not a Tonka truck but they are toys for most.  I usually describe my (full size) airplane as a "toy".  It's a very serious toy that must be respected but since I don't have a business use for it, I consider it a toy.

Until the FAA gets its head out of the clouds, they are toys.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 04, 2014, 05:34:01 pm
Until the FAA gets its head out of the clouds, they are toys.

Yes, and as long as RC Planes and Helicopters and model rockets to a certain size are classified as they are, so will the small drones. Otherwise you will have to change the classification for all of them, and hobbiest will not stand for it.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on October 04, 2014, 08:50:04 pm
Yes, and as long as RC Planes and Helicopters and model rockets to a certain size are classified as they are, so will the small drones. Otherwise you will have to change the classification for all of them, and hobbiest will not stand for it.

I don't know how big "these" unmanned aircraft are but the operators have to file a Notice to Airmen to alert pilots of their operation.  The local model rocket club files a similar NOTAM about once a month when they are launching near Leonard.


This one is SE of Salina, KS and is probably associated with Kansas State University.
Kansas City Center (Olathe KS) [ZKC]: June NOTAM #81 issued by Columbia MO [COU]
Airspace unmanned aircraft WITHIN area DEFINED as 4NM RADIUS of 14 nautical miles southeast of Salina [SLN VOR] SFC - 1800FT daily daily 1300 - 2200 June 05th, 2014 at 08:00 AM CDT (1406051300) - November 01st, 2014 at 05:00 PM CDT (1411012200)

I didn't see it tonight but there is frequently a similar notice near Ponca City which may be associated with OSU.  I know they have a UAV program.






Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 04, 2014, 08:56:16 pm
I don't know how big "these" unmanned aircraft are but the operators have to file a Notice to Airmen to alert pilots of their operation.  The local model rocket club files a similar NOTAM about once a month when they are launching near Leonard.

Kansas City Center (Olathe KS) [ZKC]: June NOTAM #81 issued by Columbia MO [COU]
Airspace unmanned aircraft WITHIN area DEFINED as 4NM RADIUS of 14 nautical miles southeast of Salina [SLN VOR] SFC - 1800FT daily daily 1300 - 2200 June 05th, 2014 at 08:00 AM CDT (1406051300) - November 01st, 2014 at 05:00 PM CDT (1411012200)



Thanks for the info, was not completely aware of the regs. Most of the "drones" that I have seen are 14 to 16 inches across, maybe 20, and
 the are ones capable of carrying a GoPro sized camera.


My RC plane reference was to something similar to what they fly out at the gluedobber field.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on October 04, 2014, 09:13:12 pm
My RC plane reference was to something similar to what they fly out at the gluedobber field.

I don't know specific restrictions on RC planes but I doubt many of them intentionally go to 1800 ft above the surface.  

The model rocket club launches stuff a lot bigger than your average Estes Model Rocket. I don't know what permits they are required to obtain.  I think their airspace notice usually goes to 10,000 ft. Next time I see it, I'll try to remember to post it here.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 04, 2014, 11:58:19 pm
I don't know specific restrictions on RC planes but I doubt many of them intentionally go to 1800 ft above the surface.  

The model rocket club launches stuff a lot bigger than your average Estes Model Rocket. I don't know what permits they are required to obtain.  I think their airspace notice usually goes to 10,000 ft. Next time I see it, I'll try to remember to post it here.

We try to stay within the AMA guidelines as far as altitude goes (400 feet above AGL and try not to operate within 3NM of a Class D or higher airspace).  I am an AMA member like my dad before me.  They have insurance for accidents which helps.  However most *responsible* hobbyists won't fly their devices in crowded areas unless they've been contracted to do so (and technically right now is illegal until the FAA rules later this year on it).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 05, 2014, 12:03:41 am
I don't know specific restrictions on RC planes but I doubt many of them intentionally go to 1800 ft above the surface.  

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/airliner-had-near-miss-with-drone-did-it-belong-to-usa-1574818013


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 05, 2014, 12:27:59 am
This is an area where I think technology and ease of use has surpassed the previous generations of RC aircraft. And while serious RC pilots know the rules and regulations, it's now reasonably cheap to buy a multi-rotor aircraft, attach a camera with a down link, and fly it anywhere within the range of the controller. For around $1000.00 I can get one and film from it and fly it at high altitudes, I guess 2000' is a piece of cake for some models. But to me the issue is you have people unfamiliar with the regulations and rules, or just don't care, that will use them in areas they shouldn't. I'm not paranoid about it, but there are safety issues, and maybe some common sense, although I think that part escapes a lot of people.

So how do you regulate something like this?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 05, 2014, 10:37:11 am
This is an area where I think technology and ease of use has surpassed the previous generations of RC aircraft. And while serious RC pilots know the rules and regulations, it's now reasonably cheap to buy a multi-rotor aircraft, attach a camera with a down link, and fly it anywhere within the range of the controller. For around $1000.00 I can get one and film from it and fly it at high altitudes, I guess 2000' is a piece of cake for some models. But to me the issue is you have people unfamiliar with the regulations and rules, or just don't care, that will use them in areas they shouldn't. I'm not paranoid about it, but there are safety issues, and maybe some common sense, although I think that part escapes a lot of people.

So how do you regulate something like this?

Peer influence?  User groups?

The Parks Service, FAA, etc. applying old rules that really dont apply wont work, and there will always be douches in any hobby, so setting a good example seems to be where we are at.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 05, 2014, 10:56:49 am
This is an area where I think technology and ease of use has surpassed the previous generations of RC aircraft. And while serious RC pilots know the rules and regulations, it's now reasonably cheap to buy a multi-rotor aircraft, attach a camera with a down link, and fly it anywhere within the range of the controller. For around $1000.00 I can get one and film from it and fly it at high altitudes, I guess 2000' is a piece of cake for some models. But to me the issue is you have people unfamiliar with the regulations and rules, or just don't care, that will use them in areas they shouldn't. I'm not paranoid about it, but there are safety issues, and maybe some common sense, although I think that part escapes a lot of people.

So how do you regulate something like this?

The biggest paranoia that I see from people about UAV ("drone"..hobbyists HATE that term) flying, especially those with optics, is that they think you are spying on them.

These things aren't capable of carrying the equipment needed to do 'covert surveillance'.  A GoPro camera is typically the payload, so those of you familiar with those understand where I'm coming from.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 05, 2014, 11:05:29 am
The biggest paranoia that I see from people about UAV ("drone"..hobbyists HATE that term) flying, especially those with optics, is that they think you are spying on them.

These things aren't capable of carrying the equipment needed to do 'covert surveillance'.  A GoPro camera is typically the payload, so those of you familiar with those understand where I'm coming from.

I have two GoPro cameras and completely agree on the images they capture. They are wide angle and have no zoom capabilities, so it literally has to be less than 5' from you to get great detail, and while you can use newer ones as a POV camera via Bluetooth, there is a delay between camera movement and what you see on a tablet of ~3 seconds, as well as the limitations of Bluetooth range.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 05, 2014, 11:36:10 am
I have two GoPro cameras and completely agree on the images they capture. They are wide angle and have no zoom capabilities, so it literally has to be less than 5' from you to get great detail, and while you can use newer ones as a POV camera via Bluetooth, there is a delay between camera movement and what you see on a tablet of ~3 seconds, as well as the limitations of Bluetooth range.

The latency is better if you use a true FPV setup; probably better than 1/4 of a second latency.  That does, however, require special equipment such as http://www.readymaderc.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11_22&products_id=524 which gives much better range.  If you want to delve into 1.2/1.3 ghz, then you get better video as well as MUCH longer range.  I know several guys with FPV rigs that get over 2 miles range.  That's straight up sick.

Also, with my Phantom, it doesn't use bluetooth for POV on either a phone or tablet.  It use 2.4ghz wireless, so the camera itself has an access point in it, and you attach a wireless "extender" to get decent range out of it.  You pair it up just like connecting to a wi-fi router.  I can get about 600 feet or thereabouts in range with that setup.  The latency is negligible if any.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 05, 2014, 11:53:10 am
The biggest paranoia that I see from people about UAV ("drone"..hobbyists HATE that term) flying, especially those with optics, is that they think you are spying on them.
These things aren't capable of carrying the equipment needed to do 'covert surveillance'.  A GoPro camera is typically the payload, so those of you familiar with those understand where I'm coming from.

Last month a Seattle woman said that a drone made her nervous because it was flying outside of her window.  Early media reports called the device a flying “Peeping Tom.”  Soon afterwards, national reports exploded with more than one hundred stories, focused mostly on the news media’s construction of a privacy violation.  Now, the photograph of the flight has been provided to Forbes, and it shows that the company flying the drone was merely making a panoramic photograph of the city skyline.  The arc of this story — a buzzworthy first report, that later ends up being false— is emblematic of many drone related stories which threaten to jeopardize the nascent industry.

The Seattle non-incident gained national media attention after the woman called her building’s concierge to complain that the drone may have been used to look into her apartment.  What received less prominent national media attention was the statement of Joe Vaughn, founder of startup company Skyris Imaging.  Vaughn said that he and the pilot of the drone were shooting a panoramic view of the city for a client who was planning to build a 20-story office tower near the woman’s apartment building.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/14/alleged-drone-peeping-tom-photo-reveals-perils-of-drone-related-journalism/
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/gregorymcneal/files/2014/07/SeattleSkyImagingPanorama.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 05, 2014, 12:00:24 pm
Here's a sample of mine, taken in the first weeks I had it.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2909/14189068758_d1711494c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nBQFNw)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Townsend on October 05, 2014, 01:41:20 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/14/alleged-drone-peeping-tom-photo-reveals-perils-of-drone-related-journalism/
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/gregorymcneal/files/2014/07/SeattleSkyImagingPanorama.jpg)

All those cranes...


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on October 05, 2014, 03:22:50 pm
The latency is better if you use a true FPV setup; probably better than 1/4 of a second latency.  That does, however, require special equipment such as http://www.readymaderc.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11_22&products_id=524 which gives much better range.  If you want to delve into 1.2/1.3 ghz, then you get better video as well as MUCH longer range.  I know several guys with FPV rigs that get over 2 miles range.  That's straight up sick.

Also, with my Phantom, it doesn't use bluetooth for POV on either a phone or tablet.  It use 2.4ghz wireless, so the camera itself has an access point in it, and you attach a wireless "extender" to get decent range out of it.  You pair it up just like connecting to a wi-fi router.  I can get about 600 feet or thereabouts in range with that setup.  The latency is negligible if any.

As I was reading this thread, I mentioned to MC we need a UAV to harass crazy pants next door.  Nothing close mind you, but simply hovering a couple hundred feet overhead.  Maybe if she thinks the CIA and MI6 finally found her, she will get the hell out of our neighborhood.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on October 05, 2014, 05:15:14 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/14/alleged-drone-peeping-tom-photo-reveals-perils-of-drone-related-journalism/




That article also mentions the incident in NYC where the police helicopter approached a hobbyists UAV at rooftop levels, then falsely claimed they were victims of a "near miss." 
They seized any video that disputed their claim, but here is video of another episode that actually shows a police helicopter trying to crash a UAV with their rotor wash:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smxql2PXehI [/youtube]

Downing UAVs with police helicopters would be reckless and irresponsible, so lets hope this is not a trend.






Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 06, 2014, 01:58:48 pm
The latency is better if you use a true FPV setup; probably better than 1/4 of a second latency.  That does, however, require special equipment such as http://www.readymaderc.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11_22&products_id=524 which gives much better range.  If you want to delve into 1.2/1.3 ghz, then you get better video as well as MUCH longer range.  I know several guys with FPV rigs that get over 2 miles range.  That's straight up sick.

Also, with my Phantom, it doesn't use bluetooth for POV on either a phone or tablet.  It use 2.4ghz wireless, so the camera itself has an access point in it, and you attach a wireless "extender" to get decent range out of it.  You pair it up just like connecting to a wi-fi router.  I can get about 600 feet or thereabouts in range with that setup.  The latency is negligible if any.

First Person Viewing sounds like a good investment, especially if you are streaming your video to a remote server for security.
It may not prevent the loss of the camera, but at least you will have good video of what happened.

DJI's behind-the-scenes peek at the hardware (which is also a blatant promotional video) but still cool:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L6Phuwqi7Y[/youtube]



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: sauerkraut on October 07, 2014, 12:46:17 pm
It's nice but those toys are expensive.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 07, 2014, 01:51:53 pm
It's nice but those toys are expensive.


All toys for grown up boys are expensive.



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 10, 2014, 12:13:09 pm
Hawk's airspace violated, hawk wins.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Townsend on October 10, 2014, 12:39:52 pm
Hawk's airspace violated, hawk wins.


(http://home.comcast.net/~yeahyeah11/birdman.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThEhMJpE1Zey-lT3MQk4Js1Pc7o4SgeHfhuIOfug2OWyRFaxuR5Q)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 21, 2014, 10:53:43 am
An acquaintance of mine who has build the same exact hexacopter rig as I'm building took a trip to Picher over the weekend.  He posted this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijaJgGyFwkw


Id like to get away from the default GoPro wide angle optics if/when I take the plunge, so Im curious, is anyone working with a high-res camera as their navigation view?  Gimbal mount would be a must.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 21, 2014, 11:04:49 am

Id like to get away from the default GoPro wide angle optics if/when I take the plunge, so Im curious, is anyone working with a high-res camera as their navigation view?  Gimbal mount would be a must.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1044729&gclid=Cj0KEQjwiJiiBRDh3Z-ctPfS5MgBEiQAAlkbQqsVxi9alyXd7q8-PT43sNVbKidFqufmsVhOt-4v4fsaAue18P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details

I think it's just too much weight to get selectable zoom capabilities.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 21, 2014, 11:48:48 am
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1044729&gclid=Cj0KEQjwiJiiBRDh3Z-ctPfS5MgBEiQAAlkbQqsVxi9alyXd7q8-PT43sNVbKidFqufmsVhOt-4v4fsaAue18P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details

I think it's just too much weight to get selectable zoom capabilities.

I might end up with a "pseudo PTZ" where the focal length is closer to what might pass for "normal" on a DSLR, but the resolution is high enough that you could perform a virtual zoom and still render detail.  Ive seen this with some success on IP security cameras, but if I had my druthers, Id druther use real optics (but glass is heavy).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 21, 2014, 12:28:23 pm
I might end up with a "pseudo PTZ" where the focal length is closer to what might pass for "normal" on a DSLR, but the resolution is high enough that you could perform a virtual zoom and still render detail.  Ive seen this with some success on IP security cameras, but if I had my druthers, Id druther use real optics (but glass is heavy).

What I'm currently working on, others have used to put big glass on it.  It's large diameter, but would require a sizable power source.  The RTF (ready-to-fly) models aren't really cost-effective.

What i'm building right now is about double the diameter and three times the lift capabilities of the Phantoms.  However, I'm still going with a GoPro on mine simply because I don't want to have $1000 worth of fragile optics PLUS the $1500 in hardware pushing it at the mercy of a thermal or VRS (also known as 'settling with power').  The Tarot FY680pro or even their 960 has combo kits, and some may offer to build.  But you'd be looking at quite a price tag and that would be without the glass.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 21, 2014, 12:51:45 pm
The biggest selling points for the GoPro are cost, ease of use, light weight and most of all durability. I understand patrics thought about not having such a wide angle lens, but then again that is why it is so it can capture as much as it can, and that's why I like using mine.

And yes adding zoom would require larger optics and more elements, as well as the mechanicals behind controlling an optical zoom, more weight, and yes you can do virtual zoom as well, but you also would require a better stabilization platform as well, since regardless of the zoom method, it over exaggerates any movement or vibration induced into the camera.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on October 21, 2014, 12:59:29 pm
Hasn’t anyone been working on a GoPro case with an optical zoom?  Just seems like a no-brainer there would be a market for it.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 21, 2014, 01:12:06 pm
Hasn’t anyone been working on a GoPro case with an optical zoom?  Just seems like a no-brainer there would be a market for it.

That's not a bad idea. You could make a replacement lens for the front of the body, since the make a stock one, that would act like a "doubler" like the ones that were made for twin lens reflex cameras.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 21, 2014, 01:39:09 pm
The biggest selling points for the GoPro are cost, ease of use, light weight and most of all durability. I understand patrics thought about not having such a wide angle lens, but then again that is why it is so it can capture as much as it can, and that's why I like using mine.

And yes adding zoom would require larger optics and more elements, as well as the mechanicals behind controlling an optical zoom, more weight, and yes you can do virtual zoom as well, but you also would require a better stabilization platform as well, since regardless of the zoom method, it over exaggerates any movement or vibration induced into the camera.

There have been so many GoPros in Phantom crash videos that have survived where I absolutely am sold on the GoPro durability.  Some survive from falls from over 200 feet will little more than surface scratches.

[youtube]eHqae-TIspM[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 21, 2014, 01:43:42 pm
As I was reading this thread, I mentioned to MC we need a UAV to harass crazy pants next door.  Nothing close mind you, but simply hovering a couple hundred feet overhead.  Maybe if she thinks the CIA and MI6 finally found her, she will get the hell out of our neighborhood.

I could bring mine over one day.  That thing is hella loud and could be mistaken for a swarm of bees even at 200 AGL.   ;D


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on October 21, 2014, 02:12:13 pm
I could bring mine over one day.  That thing is hella loud and could be mistaken for a swarm of bees even at 200 AGL.   ;D

THAT would be awesome!  Reminds me, my neighbor across the street (not crazy pants) has worked where you do for about 30 years.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 21, 2014, 02:45:51 pm
THAT would be awesome!  Reminds me, my neighbor across the street (not crazy pants) has worked where you do for about 30 years.

There's only one or two that do.  I likely know him.  I'll PM you.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on October 24, 2014, 06:57:49 pm
What I'm currently working on, others have used to put big glass on it.  It's large diameter, but would require a sizable power source.  The RTF (ready-to-fly) models aren't really cost-effective.

What i'm building right now is about double the diameter and three times the lift capabilities of the Phantoms.  However, I'm still going with a GoPro on mine simply because I don't want to have $1000 worth of fragile optics PLUS the $1500 in hardware pushing it at the mercy of a thermal or VRS (also known as 'settling with power').  The Tarot FY680pro or even their 960 has combo kits, and some may offer to build.  But you'd be looking at quite a price tag and that would be without the glass.



This would be fun:


(https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RXq25mG5ZbS8j18bD8zaPqibEe8NycYaCjW1Bc-0zovkiYvEz6lfRf-V2jXmdBtxHfKSQY6cYLDgzPcteEwqkQgE1XNcrNK1BL1c=s0-d-e1-ft#https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwzeIdbCAAAIa68.jpg:large)

https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RXq25mG5ZbS8j18bD8zaPqibEe8NycYaCjW1Bc-0zovkiYvEz6lfRf-V2jXmdBtxHfKSQY6cYLDgzPcteEwqkQgE1XNcrNK1BL1c=s0-d-e1-ft#https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwzeIdbCAAAIa68.jpg:large


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on October 28, 2014, 10:54:26 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ZB_rGFyeU[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 10, 2014, 01:26:33 am
A photo of my current build (nearly complete, have it all wired but having some issues getting it off the ground properly).

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15559131989_8824304404_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pGUBSn)DSC_0600 (https://flic.kr/p/pGUBSn)

Here's the link to the entire album.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsk5Yutyc



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: DolfanBob on November 10, 2014, 03:49:29 pm
Hoss. How long is the flight time?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 10, 2014, 04:19:08 pm
Hoss. How long is the flight time?

Hmm...looks like a question that Conan asked earlier that was similar in nature is gone.  I'm going to attribute that to the database crash error I got earlier.

The calculations with the current battery I have (4S, which is a 14.8v LiPo and 8000mah) and the current weight is about 20 minutes of flight time.  If I put optics on it weight is added, so obviously that flight time goes down.  I haven't tested flight time yet simply because we are still working on getting it right because it isn't flying right now.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on November 10, 2014, 10:15:39 pm
Hmm...looks like a question that Conan asked earlier that was similar in nature is gone.  I'm going to attribute that to the database crash error I got earlier.

The calculations with the current battery I have (4S, which is a 14.8v LiPo and 8000mah) and the current weight is about 20 minutes of flight time.  If I put optics on it weight is added, so obviously that flight time goes down.  I haven't tested flight time yet simply because we are still working on getting it right because it isn't flying right now.

Do you have anything we could torment my neighbor with for about 2 hours?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 10, 2014, 10:38:20 pm
Do you have anything we could torment my neighbor with for about 2 hours?

It won't be two hours, but a solid 45 minutes (I have the old one with two batteries and the batteries on those average about 25 minutes or so).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on November 12, 2014, 08:48:28 pm
Shoots 4K video (yay!) with a 94-degree field of view lens, which is about 20mm in 35mm equivalent (boo!)


(http://d333gi46xmu1md.cloudfront.net/images/360/inspire-1/vr1-new/0_149.jpg)
...also retractable landing gear and the option for separate pilot and camera operator.

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1097099-REG/dji_inspire_1.html


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 12, 2014, 09:02:23 pm
Shoots 4K video (yay!) with a 94-degree field of view lens, which is about 20mm in 35mm equivalent (boo!)


(http://d333gi46xmu1md.cloudfront.net/images/360/inspire-1/vr1-new/0_149.jpg)
...also retractable landing gear and the option for separate pilot and camera operator.

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1097099-REG/dji_inspire_1.html


Likely going to be priced in the $3000 range I'm guessing, given that it has the articulating arms.  I haven't seen any announcements of price yet.  That would move it more to the "Pro-sumer" than consumer grade.

It's not very pleasing to the eye either, but ultimately, if you're about getting video only and not worried about the hobby part of it, that won't matter.

I will however, pose this.

[youtube]P-7_ZHnO8D4[/youtube]

My brother and I are building this, but I gave him the green-light to maiden our build without me a couple of nights ago.  Didn't stay in the air very long, but after the week it took us to track the problem down (which in the end was something minor that we both overlooked) I was just glad to see it up.  Been too windy to mess with it, but Saturday morning at the Unclub I'll test it a little more thoroughly.

Unclub = Soccer fields across the street from Vatterott College on 118th East Ave just south of 41st St.  A group of about 20 of us hobbyists get out there once a month (and more usually) to fly if weather permits.  If it doesn't snow/rain on Saturday and winds stay as to what they are forecasting, I'll be out testing.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on November 12, 2014, 10:59:32 pm
Unclub = Soccer fields across the street from Vatterott College on 118th East Ave just south of 41st St.  A group of about 20 of us hobbyists get out there once a month (and more usually) to fly if weather permits.  If it doesn't snow/rain on Saturday and winds stay as to what they are forecasting, I'll be out testing.

That would be interesting to see.  About what time of day?



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: RecycleMichael on November 13, 2014, 01:05:50 am
My daughter has soccer games there every other weekend. I would love to get some soccer footage. I will PM you her schedule.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 13, 2014, 01:17:52 am
That would be interesting to see.  About what time of day?



Usually start about 8am and stay until whenever.  Once a month it's quite a turnout with mainly multirotors.  However, some of them go every Saturday morning and fly foams (little foam airplanes with electric motors).  Some have hellatious FPV setups.  One guy easily can fly his out a mile or more.

However I don't get out that early.  Saturday =  sleep-in day.  Well, as much as I can, which usually winds up being between 8:30 and 9.  It's my brother that I'll have to deal with since the rig is at his house in Broken Arrow.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 13, 2014, 01:24:18 am
My daughter has soccer games there every other weekend. I would love to get some soccer footage. I will PM you her schedule.

In the indicated area is where we fly.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/2014-11-13_011844.jpg)

RM, also keep in mind, that the new setup doesn't have optics yet (that comes soon, but not before I test the hell outta this thing).  I have my quad that does, however.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on November 15, 2014, 11:50:52 pm
This is an area where I think technology and ease of use has surpassed the previous generations of RC aircraft. And while serious RC pilots know the rules and regulations, it's now reasonably cheap to buy a multi-rotor aircraft, attach a camera with a down link, and fly it anywhere within the range of the controller. For around $1000.00 I can get one and film from it and fly it at high altitudes, I guess 2000' is a piece of cake for some models. But to me the issue is you have people unfamiliar with the regulations and rules, or just don't care, that will use them in areas they shouldn't. I'm not paranoid about it, but there are safety issues, and maybe some common sense, although I think that part escapes a lot of people.

So how do you regulate something like this?

Vacuous hack-jobs and scare tactics disguised as "reporting" arent helping matters any.

From Cox Media:
http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/some-drone-pilots-violate-faa-rules/vC2tsK/


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 16, 2014, 12:55:13 am
Vacuous hack-jobs and scare tactics disguised as "reporting" arent helping matters any.

From Cox Media:
http://www.fox23.com/videos/news/some-drone-pilots-violate-faa-rules/vC2tsK/


Yep, our little group that meets at the soccer fields lamented this report as well.  Doesn't surprise me, however.  They didn't do enough research and made this a one-sided report, IMO.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on December 18, 2014, 02:53:29 pm
Yep, our little group that meets at the soccer fields lamented this report as well.  Doesn't surprise me, however.  They didn't do enough research and made this a one-sided report, IMO.

Im still petrified by horror stories of people trying out their copter for the first time outside, and it just goes straight up never to be seen again.
Thats one expensive balloon.  Hopefully the software has improved.
...and if you know anyone missing one, one turned up outside the arena downtown.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on December 18, 2014, 03:04:59 pm
Im still petrified by horror stories of people trying out their copter for the first time outside, and it just goes straight up never to be seen again.
Thats one expensive balloon.  Hopefully the software has improved.
...and if you know anyone missing one, one turned up outside the arena downtown.


Haven't heard anything about that yet.

Typically, when these things go 'fly-away', new users try to blame the hardware.  99 times out of 100 it's a new user not following the instructions.

And, as a former "real" RC airplane flyer, and a real world "almost" pilot, I go through a checklist before I even send mine skyward.  These "RTF" setups make it far too easy for someone to just plug the battery in to charge it, go to the field and take off.

BTW, here's the semi-finished product (haven't been able to fly it to tune it yet with the crappy weather this week..plus haven't put the optics on it yet):

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/10839893_10203268933307031_641485554_o.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on January 22, 2015, 09:49:37 am

Typically, when these things go 'fly-away', new users try to blame the hardware.  99 times out of 100 it's a new user not following the instructions.

And, as a former "real" RC airplane flyer, and a real world "almost" pilot, I go through a checklist before I even send mine skyward.  These "RTF" setups make it far too easy for someone to just plug the battery in to charge it, go to the field and take off.


Curious to see your progress.

But anyway, 6 pounds is too much for a DJI Spreading Wings S900      http://www.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s900

(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/1458x883+0+67/resize/630x382!/format/jpg/quality/85/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/midas/66e7494e69b50033ba4ae0fa440ddbb3/201431656/2ee068ac025b457c90dee1dbdf53ef5e.jpeg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on January 22, 2015, 01:14:24 pm
Curious to see your progress.

But anyway, 6 pounds is too much for a DJI Spreading Wings S900      http://www.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s900

(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/1458x883+0+67/resize/630x382!/format/jpg/quality/85/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/midas/66e7494e69b50033ba4ae0fa440ddbb3/201431656/2ee068ac025b457c90dee1dbdf53ef5e.jpeg)


It's not so much the weight as it is weight to thrust.

And other stuff has kind of put the hexacopter project on the back burner.  It's assembled and we have flown it some, but it needs tuning to fly properly and the last four or five weekends have not been very conducive for this (too much wind).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on January 26, 2015, 11:10:38 am
Haven't heard anything about that yet.

Typically, when these things go 'fly-away', new users try to blame the hardware.  99 times out of 100 it's a new user not following the instructions.

And, as a former "real" RC airplane flyer, and a real world "almost" pilot, I go through a checklist before I even send mine skyward.  These "RTF" setups make it far too easy for someone to just plug the battery in to charge it, go to the field and take off.


I fear my discussion may have, um, "hexed" a friend, who just lost his DJI around (or in) the river.   He mentioned his video feed started to break up, so he gave a Return command, and the 'copter just flew out of sight.

He's a Private Pilot so my impression is that he is a capable operator, and is hoping the "reward if found" decal works better than the software did.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on January 26, 2015, 11:14:07 am
I fear my discussion may have, um, "hexed" a friend, who just lost his DJI around (or in) the river.   He mentioned his video feed started to break up, so he gave a Return command, and the 'copter just flew out of sight.

He's a Private Pilot so my impression is that he is a capable operator, and is hoping the "reward if found" decal works better than the software did.

The return command will only work if the operator waits long enough to allow the vehichle to set the home location.  The arm leds will flash green rapidly once that happens.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 26, 2015, 12:15:00 pm
I fear my discussion may have, um, "hexed" a friend, who just lost his DJI around (or in) the river.   He mentioned his video feed started to break up, so he gave a Return command, and the 'copter just flew out of sight.

He's a Private Pilot so my impression is that he is a capable operator, and is hoping the "reward if found" decal works better than the software did.

Wasn't this one by chance?

http://www.cnet.com/news/quadcopter-drone-crashes-on-white-house-grounds/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/quadcopter-drone-crashes-on-white-house-grounds/)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Breadburner on January 26, 2015, 01:52:31 pm
If I was that guy....I think I would have let that one go......


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on January 26, 2015, 04:05:23 pm
If I was that guy....I think I would have let that one go......

Can you imagine the anal probe for that one?

“Hi, I’m looking for my lost quad copter...”

(https://gallery.mailchimp.com/507a134f1f975eaeabbd7d266/images/081113tile1157837.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Breadburner on January 26, 2015, 08:37:54 pm
Heh....Are you using the whole fist doc...???


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 26, 2015, 08:45:46 pm
Heh....Are you using the whole fist doc...???

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPStwD1C8-c[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Breadburner on January 26, 2015, 09:33:30 pm
Nice....!!


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on January 27, 2015, 01:58:35 pm
Wasn't this one by chance?

http://www.cnet.com/news/quadcopter-drone-crashes-on-white-house-grounds/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/quadcopter-drone-crashes-on-white-house-grounds/)

Nyet, that turned out to be a White House employee.  May look bad on their record.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on January 28, 2015, 02:03:16 pm
(http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2015/01/28/Photos/MG/MW-DE346_drone__20150128132122_MG.jpg?uuid=840d0ca6-a71a-11e4-8f10-89dea7e4423f)

15 miles is a bit overkill for model aircraft, but the FAA insists on recycling old regulations meant for manned aircraft to apply to new technology.

The no-fly comes in the form of a software update that causes the craft to land when the GPS coordinates match a list of those stored in memory.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on January 28, 2015, 03:30:56 pm
(http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2015/01/28/Photos/MG/MW-DE346_drone__20150128132122_MG.jpg?uuid=840d0ca6-a71a-11e4-8f10-89dea7e4423f)

15 miles is a bit overkill for model aircraft, but the FAA insists on recycling old regulations meant for manned aircraft to apply to new technology.

The no-fly comes in the form of a software update that causes the craft to land when the GPS coordinates match a list of those stored in memory.

I'm surprised they didn't have this anyway, as they have restrictions all over based on GPS coordinates.  Kind of silly.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on April 29, 2015, 11:46:57 am
My understanding is the National Parks Service can no longer mis-appropriate a U.S. Code aimed at banning helicopter rides in parks, to hobbyist craft, but this seems to have gone over the top:


Park Ranger Uses Stun Gun On Man Flying Drone Over Lava Lake In Hawaii

HONOLULU (AP) - A man who had been flying a drone over a lake of lava at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was hit with a Taser by a park ranger, then arrested in front of several hundred people.

Travis Ray Sanders brought his family to the park on Saturday evening to record the lava with his drone and didn't realize the man yelling at him to bring it down was a ranger, he told Hawaii News Now.

"He sounded very angry, confrontational - like he wanted to fight - and I didn't really want to stick around for it so I just told him, 'I don't have ID and I'm leaving," Sanders told the Honolulu news station.

Because Sanders was near the edge of the caldera rim - where there's a 500-foot drop - the ranger deployed a Taser, a spokeswoman said.

Another visitor to the park, Randy Horne, was setting up his camera and tripod at the overlook when he heard a commotion. He heard someone yell stop and when he turned around, he saw the ranger pull out a stun gun. He saw the weapon's "sparkly, glowing blue" wires attached to a man on the ground.

"I really didn't see there was any severe threat going on," Horne, of Honokaa, Hawaii, told the AP. "In my opinion, I thought it was a severe overreaction."

Horne watched as Sanders was handcuffed and then put into a police car.

Sanders, 35, of Pahoa, Hawaii, was arrested and cited with interfering with agency functions and operating an aircraft on undesignated land. He was taken to a Hawaii County police cellblock where he spent the night and was released in the morning on $500 bond, Ferracane said. "The ranger felt he needed to be stopped for the safety of himself and others."


Video:  http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/clip/11435375/10pm-report-drone-operator-chased-tased-by-ranger-at-hawaii-volcanoes-national-park








Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Townsend on April 29, 2015, 12:34:50 pm

Because Sanders was near the edge of the caldera rim - where there's a 500-foot drop - the ranger deployed a Taser, a spokeswoman said.


I know nothing of the location or the situation but the edge of a cliff seems to be a poor place to render someone unable to control themselves.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on May 27, 2015, 12:27:53 pm
Finally!

http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/05/26/faa-streamlines-approvals-for-rpa-test-sites/ (http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/05/26/faa-streamlines-approvals-for-rpa-test-sites/)



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on May 28, 2015, 06:32:34 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZHZz9gFq4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=102&v=JJ41-3yb3eY[/youtube]


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2015, 08:39:58 am
After 10 months, I finally have the hexacopter flying and taking footage.

It began last August when I started piecing together parts for this behemoth.  Working mainly on weekends with my brother, and then about a 8 week hiatus after both mom and dad passed earlier this year...then a test flight failure two weeks ago (you can read that as a crash), then a rebuild, last night we put her up for two fully batteries worth..well, more like half batteries, since I'm learning the usage on this thing I have to time flights for now.

During pre-flight checks (the dangling item is the gopro camera..we had to locate the proper allen wrench to secure it on the gimbal):

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/463/19109322260_e00ddbbccb_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/v7CgKs)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/374/19109322540_58a334d7fd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/v7CgQh)

Here's a bit of footage from the camera.  Keep in mind I'm a GoPro rookie and the footage is pretty washed out.  We got about 25 minutes..this is about 2 or so.

https://vimeo.com/132168487


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on June 30, 2015, 09:10:09 am
Try an ND filter on the GroPro it will dampen the Jello effect created by the sunlight going through the props and prop wash.  Nice work and please keep it low and legal, I'd hate to meet that beast in the air.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2015, 09:55:18 am
Try an ND filter on the GroPro it will dampen the Jello effect created by the sunlight going through the props and prop wash.  Nice work and please keep it low and legal, I'd hate to meet that beast in the air.

As an AMA member I know all the regs regarding flying of hobby aircraft.  :)

But yes, I have a cap set on my flight controller in case something goes amiss (400ft AGL which is the limit).  I'm still in the beta-testing phase.

Thanks for the notes about the GoPro.  I also had someone suggest to me filming in 60fps instead of 30.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:09 pm
That looks pretty badass.  Too bad we got rid of the next door neighbor, that might have put her over the edge.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on June 30, 2015, 02:03:47 pm
That looks pretty badass.  Too bad we got rid of the next door neighbor, that might have put her over the edge.

Yeah, I was going to ask about that.... :)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 02, 2015, 11:08:39 am
As an AMA member I know all the regs regarding flying of hobby aircraft.  :)

But yes, I have a cap set on my flight controller in case something goes amiss (400ft AGL which is the limit).  I'm still in the beta-testing phase.

Thanks for the notes about the GoPro.  I also had someone suggest to me filming in 60fps instead of 30.

Here is a link to GoPro about the wave/warble effect. For all of the dampening software it has, there seems to be a couple o frequency ranges they have a hard time eliminating.

http://gopro.com/support/articles/how-to-prevent-waves-distortions-videos (http://gopro.com/support/articles/how-to-prevent-waves-distortions-videos)

http://www.flitetest.com/articles/vibrations-and-jello-effect-causes-and-cures (http://www.flitetest.com/articles/vibrations-and-jello-effect-causes-and-cures)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 14, 2015, 03:14:11 am
Hoss, I don't know if I posted these before, but here are a couple of screen shots I captured from my GoPro last year while driving the PCH from Bodega Bay to San Francisco of a near collision between my car an either a buzzard or a condor.

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/buzzard2_zpso2zgkdit.jpg)

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/buzzard3_zpsza8x1wvc.jpg)

Having just left here

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1020795_zps9c5d48d5.jpg)

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1020799_zps4f21a0ea.jpg)

This was the route I drove that day.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.3459835,-122.9715765/37.8791322,-122.5332445/37.4620148,-122.4343749/36.5904447,-121.8960345/@37.7513715,-122.5794497,10.53z/data=!4m26!4m25!1m10!3m4!1m2!1d-122.8104014!2d38.0829579!3s0x8085c5dfaaaaaaab:0xe787718848541930!3m4!1m2!1d-122.6988519!2d37.9363102!3s0x808594c11415c66b:0x6edb51400ed8fac6!1m10!3m4!1m2!1d-122.4804273!2d37.7943025!3s0x808586e335d31717:0x3c1322443d0d9226!3m4!1m2!1d-122.513539!2d37.778952!3s0x808587b59fa73a03:0x3446fa56eeb2efb9!1m0!1m0!3e0?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.3459835,-122.9715765/37.8791322,-122.5332445/37.4620148,-122.4343749/36.5904447,-121.8960345/@37.7513715,-122.5794497,10.53z/data=!4m26!4m25!1m10!3m4!1m2!1d-122.8104014!2d38.0829579!3s0x8085c5dfaaaaaaab:0xe787718848541930!3m4!1m2!1d-122.6988519!2d37.9363102!3s0x808594c11415c66b:0x6edb51400ed8fac6!1m10!3m4!1m2!1d-122.4804273!2d37.7943025!3s0x808586e335d31717:0x3c1322443d0d9226!3m4!1m2!1d-122.513539!2d37.778952!3s0x808587b59fa73a03:0x3446fa56eeb2efb9!1m0!1m0!3e0?hl=en)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on July 18, 2015, 10:52:33 am
Then...


In their losing battle against wildfires, drones could be a firefighter's ace in the hole.

"We can get more information for less cost, and it doesn't put anyone in harm's way," said Sher Schranz, a project manager at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who researches fire weather modeling.

Fighting wildfires is a tricky game, since the direction and intensity of the massive blazes can change in seconds. Drones can help in two ways: They can safely gather more information about fire conditions than is currently available, and they can send that information to firefighters on the ground quickly.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/19/technology/innovation/fire-fighting-drones/


Their potential usefulness, particularly their ability to pinpoint hot spots and fly in thick smoke that would ground other aircraft, was shown in an Alaskan fire nearly four years ago.

The fire, which burned over 447,000 acres — roughly half the size of Rhode Island — northeast of Fairbanks, was generating so much smoke that no planes were permitted to fly overhead. But a drone belonging to the University of Alaska Fairbanks was launched and easily identified the extent of the blaze and its varying levels of heat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/faas-concerns-hold-up-use-of-wildfire-drones.html


And Now...


Southern California’s first major wildfire of the season, the Lake fire in the San Bernardino Mountains, was interrupted on its first day by a drone.

It forced the air tanker pilots to jettison a total of about 2,000 gallons of retardant at a cost of roughly $15,000, U.S. Forest Service spokesman John Miller said. It also forced the grounding of three aircraft, including two air tankers preparing to drop retardant along the eastern flank of the fire.

“More importantly, it could’ve killed everybody in the air,” Miller said at a news conference the next day, which was held specifically to address the drone situation.

http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150717/drones-continue-to-hurt-southern-california-fire-fighting-efforts



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on July 19, 2015, 12:45:54 pm
Update..so, like any true guy, I keep working on this thing because the initial kit I got I found some flaws in.  Of course I wind up spending more money on it than I should, but I digress...

Motor mounts coming with the kit are cheap, using brass inserts into plastic that hold the screws.  Problem with this is if there is either too much vibration, or you herk down on a screw too hard during construction/re-assembly, that brass inserts separates out from the plastic, creating all kind of havoc.

So I got some replacement, CNC aluminum motor mounts that also have rubber grommets to help with engine vibration.  They cost twice as much as the plastic replacment mounts, but I was having to replace those about every third flight, so I'm sure after 6 flights they'll pay for themselves.

The problem is that I'm using 13" props.  I was pushing the size of the propellers as they were (clearance between tips was about 1/2" or less).  The new motor mounts shorten the length from center of the vehicle to center of the motor shaft by about 1/4".  Tips of the props nearly touched.  Luckily, I measured those out while installing the new mounts so I didn't fire the thing up before measuring.  That would have been a messy (and dangerous) disaster.

Finding the kind of carbon tube these things take is not easy, and especially now I have to custom fit these to extend the tubes out to make the propellers fit.  I found tubes in 1200mm lengths and bought two.

The messy part was figuring out how to cut fabric laminated carbon tube.  Circ saw doesn't work...so wound up using a grinding wheel on a Dremel to cut.  A little time consuming and messy (carbon dust is nasty; my brother did all that wearing a respirator).  Essentially, I widened the vehicle from a 680mm - or about 26" in diamter from motor hub to motor hub (hence the model name was Tarot680Pro) to about 800mm - or about 31".

Problem is we had to take the vehicle apart.  Lot of parts and fasteners.  Plus, while in there we re-wired it (no Tim Allen references please) with a little thicker gauge wire to hopefully reduce voltage drops under load and to get the connectors out of the middle of the tubes.  We would have issues when we would need to replace a motor mount that the whole tube would have to come off.  No fun and time consuming.  This change should eliminate all of that.

With the new configuration, I should be able to turn a slower motor on this with bigger props (looking at going to 14 or even 15 inch props) and get better flight times but would have to change from a 4S battery (which is 14.8V) and go to a 6S battery (22.2V).  I could run two 3S batteries in series but that bulks up the undercarriage.  I'd also have to buy 6 new motors.  More lettuce.

Here's a picture of the hex before the modification:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/2015-06-29%2015.01.48.jpg)

Here's a picture after..no center cover but you can still see the difference.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/2015-07-18%2023.13.24.jpg)

Sorry to bore you guys with this.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 28, 2015, 07:57:38 am
Not at all boring!!


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: DolfanBob on August 04, 2015, 11:25:33 am
So this is a thing.

http://dronenationals.com/


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on August 04, 2015, 01:09:15 pm
So this is a thing.

As is this, apparently. 
WASHINGTON -- CBS News has learned that the Department of Homeland Security has sent an intelligence assessment to police agencies across the country about drones being used as weapons in an attack.

The bulletin went out Friday and warned that unmanned aircraft systems or drones could be used in the U.S. to advance terrorist and criminal activities. Law enforcement sources say, "emerging adversary use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems present detection and disruption challenges."

According to federal officials, "The rising trend in UAS incidents within the National Airspace System will continue, as UAS gain wider appeal with recreational users and commercial applications."

Currently, intelligence bulletins are released almost weekly as law enforcement responds to threats from ISIS sympathizers. But the release of a bulletin dedicated to the threat from UAS is unusual. The bulletin does not mention any specific upcoming events authorities are concerned about but points to the overall security challenges drones present.


Lets hope they act quickly to stem the runaway epidemic of commercial and military crashes caused by model aircraft.
/s


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 04, 2015, 02:50:20 pm
So this is a thing.

http://dronenationals.com/

Yep, first year for it.  So?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Townsend on August 04, 2015, 02:55:55 pm
Yep, first year for it.  So?

I want Battlebots kind of stuff.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: DolfanBob on August 05, 2015, 01:00:00 pm
Yep, first year for it.  So?

Pretty wild stuff. They race with virtual goggles on. The view is like your sitting in a cockpit flying the drone. Something the participants have really got to get adapted to. Kinda like Star Wars Pod Racing. Makes me think of the Tulsa Glue Dobbers but a step up from what they do.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 05, 2015, 01:16:12 pm
Pretty wild stuff. They race with virtual goggles on. The view is like your sitting in a cockpit flying the drone. Something the participants have really got to get adapted to. Kinda like Star Wars Pod Racing. Makes me think of the Tulsa Glue Dobbers but a step up from what they do.

It's called FPV and it's not really that difficult to get used.

Don't get me started on the current incarnation of the Glue Dobbers.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 05, 2015, 02:37:45 pm
OK, here's some more footage I've taken with the GoPro over the last couple of weeks.

At a park down the street from my brother..at dusk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlmnwrNjBs

Taken at the unclub (41st/Garnett) back on July 25th.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQU86zXb60g

This final one is the vehicle fully autonomous.  IOW, I created waypoints, uploaded to the copter, threw the throttle up to start the 'mission', and it flew on its own completely.  From start to finish.  Not a long flight, but first one I've done sofar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gRUf7Jf-M


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: DolfanBob on August 05, 2015, 04:33:57 pm
Of course something like this was going to take place sooner or later.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/04/drone-drug-delivery-ohio-prison-fight-heroin-marijuana-tobacco


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 05, 2015, 05:37:54 pm
Of course something like this was going to take place sooner or later.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/04/drone-drug-delivery-ohio-prison-fight-heroin-marijuana-tobacco

It's actually happened more than you'd think.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: DolfanBob on August 06, 2015, 09:35:34 am
It's actually happened more than you'd think.

I'll bet. Criminals are pretty clever.....well until they get caught.  ;D


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 12, 2015, 11:08:29 am
The last thing your drone sees when it enters and eagles territory.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/drone360/2015/08/10/video-australian-eagle-takes-out-drone-in-midair/#.Vct8zSZViko (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/drone360/2015/08/10/video-australian-eagle-takes-out-drone-in-midair/#.Vct8zSZViko)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on August 13, 2015, 04:03:16 pm
The problem with these reports is they dont distinguish between a hobbyists copter and a government drone.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/faa-pilot-reports-of-drone-sightings-more-than-double/article_f39d397c-4741-5316-a169-3d2547b8a745.html

There have been a handful that do mention when they are fixed-wing craft, but not as a rule.  Homeland Security routinely loans Predator drones to local governments like county sheriffs, and they dont exactly file flight plans when they fly them.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/drones-state-local-law-enforcement-agencies-license-list.html


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 13, 2015, 04:22:31 pm
The problem with these reports is they dont distinguish between a hobbyists copter and a government drone.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/faa-pilot-reports-of-drone-sightings-more-than-double/article_f39d397c-4741-5316-a169-3d2547b8a745.html

There have been a handful that do mention when they are fixed-wing craft, but not as a rule.  Homeland Security routinely loans Predator drones to local governments like county sheriffs, and they dont exactly file flight plans when they fly them.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/drones-state-local-law-enforcement-agencies-license-list.html

An airline pilot actually wrote a post about the freak-out media is currently pushing...

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on September 23, 2015, 10:19:42 am
The FAA OK's use for news and weather operations:
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/channel-2-action-news-becomes-first-local-tv/vDbWMb/

...while the Coast Guard practices downing them with helicopter wash:
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/weather/drone-dunked-by-downdraft-from-coast-guard/vCqBQ7/





Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: saintnicster on September 24, 2015, 11:10:07 am
The FAA OK's use for news and weather operations:
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/channel-2-action-news-becomes-first-local-tv/vDbWMb/

...while the Coast Guard practices downing them with helicopter wash:
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/weather/drone-dunked-by-downdraft-from-coast-guard/vCqBQ7/

That footage is from August 2014 http://coastguardnews.com/coast-guard-chopper-takes-out-drone/2015/01/05/
I'd hope that the operator learned something about "situational awareness"


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on September 26, 2015, 09:49:56 am
Since the FAA hasnt made much progress in rule-making for multicopters, they are just kind of making it up as they go along as far as granting exceptions (like requiring them to be registered and marked like regular aircraft, and piloted by licensed pilots).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 22, 2015, 06:10:36 pm
Got to love how these people treat hobbyists like they were planting bombs.


A Raleigh man was charged with flying a drone over the N.C. State Fair on Wednesday night, and Wake County sheriff’s investigators have obtained search warrants to cull through the video images the man made with the machine, according to Sheriff Donnie Harrison.

Matthew Allen Kenning, 38, was charged with one count of misdemeanor regulation of an unmanned aircraft system. “He did not have permission to fly the drone on state property,” Harrison said Thursday.

A background check revealed that Kenning is a registered sex offender. Harrison said that information prompted the sheriff’s office to obtain the search warrant to review the video data the drone collected at the Fair.

“He said he was collecting video to sell on YouTube to help pay for the drone,” Harrison said. “We want to see what was captured by the drone and consult with the district attorney. He said he wanted to sell aerial video of the fair. Right now, we don’t know what his intent was. It might have been lights, sounds and the Ferris wheel.”

A Trooper with the N.C. State Highway Patrol spotted the unmanned craft hovering above the Fair at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday. A sheriff’s deputy followed the direction that the drone was traveling and saw a man with some type of device around his neck bring the aircraft to the ground.

“We wanted to find the person controlling it pretty quickly because if it had crashed it could have hurt a lot of people,” Harrison said.

While talking with Kenning, the deputies discovered that he had Adderall used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other “unlabled pills,” Harrison said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article41043300.html


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: rebound on October 23, 2015, 08:11:33 am
I don't really see an issue with this one.  

- Guy at fair with drone.
- Someone gets nervous,  alerts cops.
- Cops question.
- Guy does not have permission or approval to fly drone at fair.
- During questioning (which seems reasonable given the circumstances),  cops find out he has various pills on him, and he's a registered sex offender.
- Cops ask "why are you taking pics at the fair".  Guy "I plan on selling the footage to pay for the drone".
- Cops,  "well, you don't have permission.  Let us see the footage you took, and we'll decide from there."
- Guy "NO"
- Cops "Dude, you are a registered sex offender taking unauthorized drone pics at a fair.  Given the circumstances, we have to have a look at those pics."
- Guy "NO".
- Cops "Well, OK then.  You are coming with us, and we are confiscating the drone."

I have no idea what is on the camera, but once the situation came down as it did, the dude should have let the cops see the footage.  No harm, no foul, and they probably just tell him to leave the fair and don't come back with the drone without approval.   Unless of course there's a bunch of tight shots of little girls, and then there's a problem.



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 23, 2015, 08:33:27 am
I don't really see an issue with this one.  

- Guy at fair with drone.
- Someone gets nervous,  alerts cops.
- Cops question.
- Guy does not have permission or approval to fly drone at fair.
- During questioning (which seems reasonable given the circumstances),  cops find out he has various pills on him, and he's a registered sex offender.
- Cops ask "why are you taking pics at the fair".  Guy "I plan on selling the footage to pay for the drone".
- Cops,  "well, you don't have permission.  Let us see the footage you took, and we'll decide from there."
- Guy "NO"
- Cops "Dude, you are a registered sex offender taking unauthorized drone pics at a fair.  Given the circumstances, we have to have a look at those pics."
- Guy "NO".
- Cops "Well, OK then.  You are coming with us, and we are confiscating the drone."

I have no idea what is on the camera, but once the situation came down as it did, the dude should have let the cops see the footage.  No harm, no foul, and they probably just tell him to leave the fair and don't come back with the drone without approval.   Unless of course there's a bunch of tight shots of little girls, and then there's a problem.



Same here.  I would NEVER fly mine near a large group of people (usually a big park that is virtually empty or a field).  These are the kinds of people (sex offender status aside) that are forcing the FAA/DOT to start looking at making registration mandatory.  That's just going to be a large charlie foxtrot to get that rolled out.  Maybe it will roll out in 2020, given the speed with which the government works.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 23, 2015, 12:06:31 pm
I don't really see an issue with this one.  

- Guy at fair with drone.
- Someone gets nervous,  alerts cops.
- Cops question.
- Guy does not have permission or approval to fly drone at fair.
- During questioning (which seems reasonable given the circumstances),  cops find out he has various pills on him, and he's a registered sex offender.
- Cops ask "why are you taking pics at the fair".  Guy "I plan on selling the footage to pay for the drone".
- Cops,  "well, you don't have permission.  Let us see the footage you took, and we'll decide from there."
- Guy "NO"
- Cops "Dude, you are a registered sex offender taking unauthorized drone pics at a fair.  Given the circumstances, we have to have a look at those pics."
- Guy "NO".
- Cops "Well, OK then.  You are coming with us, and we are confiscating the drone."

I have no idea what is on the camera, but once the situation came down as it did, the dude should have let the cops see the footage.  No harm, no foul, and they probably just tell him to leave the fair and don't come back with the drone without approval.   Unless of course there's a bunch of tight shots of little girls, and then there's a problem.

None of the other news accounts match your made-up dialog, as he apparently had been cooperating with the police.
But was he endangering people?

Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said Kenning was operating the drone outside the fairgrounds while on a shoulder of Hillsborough Street.
http://wncn.com/2015/10/22/raleigh-man-charged-with-flying-drone-over-nc-state-fair/ 

As far as your "tight shots of little girls," how close would you have to get with a GoPro to do that?

Im not going to defend an idiot being reckless with a copter, but that really doesnt seem to be the case here.

(https://mgtvwncn.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/drone.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: rebound on October 28, 2015, 09:43:34 pm
None of the other news accounts match your made-up dialog, as he apparently had been cooperating with the police.
But was he endangering people?

Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison said Kenning was operating the drone outside the fairgrounds while on a shoulder of Hillsborough Street.
http://wncn.com/2015/10/22/raleigh-man-charged-with-flying-drone-over-nc-state-fair/ 

As far as your "tight shots of little girls," how close would you have to get with a GoPro to do that?

Im not going to defend an idiot being reckless with a copter, but that really doesnt seem to be the case here.

Well I wasn't really trying to be specific to the case, just putting together a general string of events/scenario. 

There is a general level of argument here related to flying drones that I don't have a firm opinion on.  But as far as the first contact by officers goes in this case, it appears that while he may have been outside the fair grounds, the drone itself flew over the grounds.  Does a drone cause a danger to the crowd?  I suppose there is some danger if it crashes, etc., but that is arguable.  But regardless, that appears to be the first contact reason. 

And let's give the guy leeway and accept that he his being polite, etc, with the police.  But during questioning they discover his sex offender charge.  I don't see any other option for them at the time than to want to see the video to make sure the footage is innocent, etc.  If it is, then they can figure out whether they need to fine him, or let him go, or whatever.

But at the point he says NO, this raises (unnecessary, if the video is innocent enough) doubt in the officers' minds.  I am not in any way suggesting he did anything wrong, but there are certain ways to handle certain situations,  and in this case he (to me) intentionally raised doubt in the officers' minds when he did not have to do this.   And generally, that is not a winning situation. 



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on October 30, 2015, 12:53:36 pm
Well I wasn't really trying to be specific to the case, just putting together a general string of events/scenario. 

There is a general level of argument here related to flying drones that I don't have a firm opinion on.  But as far as the first contact by officers goes in this case, it appears that while he may have been outside the fair grounds, the drone itself flew over the grounds.  Does a drone cause a danger to the crowd?  I suppose there is some danger if it crashes, etc., but that is arguable.  But regardless, that appears to be the first contact reason. 

And let's give the guy leeway and accept that he his being polite, etc, with the police.  But during questioning they discover his sex offender charge.  I don't see any other option for them at the time than to want to see the video to make sure the footage is innocent, etc.  If it is, then they can figure out whether they need to fine him, or let him go, or whatever.

But at the point he says NO, this raises (unnecessary, if the video is innocent enough) doubt in the officers' minds.  I am not in any way suggesting he did anything wrong, but there are certain ways to handle certain situations,  and in this case he (to me) intentionally raised doubt in the officers' minds when he did not have to do this.   And generally, that is not a winning situation. 

Exactly what the pilot had the right to say NO to might make a big difference.  "We want to look at your video"" is not the same as "We want to seize your camera."  I havent read the specifics of that particular aspect, but in our legal system, not even someone who served time in 1999 for sex with a girl who lied about her age is "guilty until proven innocent." 



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: rebound on October 30, 2015, 02:17:03 pm
Exactly what the pilot had the right to say NO to might make a big difference.  "We want to look at your video"" is not the same as "We want to seize your camera."  I havent read the specifics of that particular aspect, but in our legal system, not even someone who served time in 1999 for sex with a girl who lied about her age is "guilty until proven innocent." 

Fair enough.  (State Fair...   I crack myself up.) 

But I just skimmed every article I could find on the situation, and I'm going to hold to my first position/instinct.   Again, whether or not flying a drone at a fair (or over a fair, in this case) should be regulated is a arguable, but right now apparently that's not OK there and so that point is moot. Also, I had the same thought regarding the applicability of his sex offender conviction. But we don't know specifics of that, and regardless of the circumstances around his conviction he is none the less still a registered sex offender and it's not up to the officers in this case to make decisions like that.  He's a sex offender, and so suspicion is this case seems very appropriate.

And I can't find whether they seized his drone or not.  It sounds like they did, and then got a search warrant prior to reviewing the drive.  (and I do think that order of events is very important.)   And I can't tell what the nature of the interaction with the officers was.  Was it cordial? (sp?) I don't know.  But given that the police went to the trouble to get a warrant indicates to me the refused their request to look at the pictures.  (If he had done that, no warrant would be needed.)  And I can't help it, and I try to look at stuff like this abstractly, but the dude looks pretty squirrelly, and he has other sex-offender related stuff going on right now as well.

I think I've shown that I can be very suspect regarding police behavior, etc, but I don't see anything wrong here.

 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on October 30, 2015, 03:44:42 pm
Fair enough.  (State Fair...   I crack myself up.) 

But I just skimmed every article I could find on the situation, and I'm going to hold to my first position/instinct.   Again, whether or not flying a drone at a fair (or over a fair, in this case) should be regulated is a arguable, but right now apparently that's not OK there and so that point is moot. Also, I had the same thought regarding the applicability of his sex offender conviction. But we don't know specifics of that, and regardless of the circumstances around his conviction he is none the less still a registered sex offender and it's not up to the officers in this case to make decisions like that.  He's a sex offender, and so suspicion is this case seems very appropriate.

And I can't find whether they seized his drone or not.  It sounds like they did, and then got a search warrant prior to reviewing the drive.  (and I do think that order of events is very important.)   And I can't tell what the nature of the interaction with the officers was.  Was it cordial? (sp?) I don't know.  But given that the police went to the trouble to get a warrant indicates to me the refused their request to look at the pictures.  (If he had done that, no warrant would be needed.)  And I can't help it, and I try to look at stuff like this abstractly, but the dude looks pretty squirrelly, and he has other sex-offender related stuff going on right now as well.

I think I've shown that I can be very suspect regarding police behavior, etc, but I don't see anything wrong here.

 

The problem now is that people (and the government has been just as guilty of this, surprise) haven't educated themselves on the kinds of capabilities these 'dangerous' drones have.  I've posted links to videos I do.  In order to get closeups of people you'd have to fly them at ground level.  Defeats the purpose of what the cameras on the vehicles were put on there for.

It's all a big knee-jerk reaction.  In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, not the other way around.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on October 30, 2015, 04:25:12 pm
It's all a big knee-jerk reaction.  In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, not the other way around.


I'm confident that one will be found.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on December 15, 2015, 02:11:11 pm

FOX23 becomes first Tulsa station to launch FAA approved newsgathering drone
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/fox23-becomes-first-tulsa-station-fly-drone-newsca/npjq2/





Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Townsend on December 15, 2015, 02:58:56 pm
FOX23 becomes first Tulsa station to launch FAA approved newsgathering drone
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/fox23-becomes-first-tulsa-station-fly-drone-newsca/npjq2/

Will it fly around with a fox23 banner hanging off it?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on December 15, 2015, 05:47:04 pm
FOX23 becomes first Tulsa station to launch FAA approved newsgathering drone
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/fox23-becomes-first-tulsa-station-fly-drone-newsca/npjq2/





Wow, they spared no expense there.  Newer version of my old DJI but with a little better camera.  Cost of that max is about $1200.  Other news outlets use bigger rigs so they can use better optics.  But whatever.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on December 15, 2015, 05:47:53 pm
Will it fly around with a fox23 banner hanging off it?

It would have to be a really really small banner.  That thing can't haul a whole lot.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on December 15, 2015, 05:49:54 pm

I'm confident that one will be found.

And you were right.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459718303/faa-announces-new-registration-guidelines-for-drones

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on December 15, 2015, 07:46:27 pm
And you were right.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459718303/faa-announces-new-registration-guidelines-for-drones

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.




On November 17, 2015 the National Press Photographers Association (“NPPA”), joined by 10 other organizations submitted supplemental comments to the FAA regarding the unintended consequences of drone registration. The groups are concerned that a registration process requiring all drone operators to carry a certificate of registration with them, and produce it on demand to a federal, state or local police official, will be used by police and prosecutors in a pretextual way to chill free speech and freedom of the press. Journalists often encounter this type of interference. Police officers who do not like news coverage of an event often use vague charges like failing to obey a lawful order or interference with officers at an emergency scene to stop journalists.

Writing for the group, NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher, expressed the concern “with these unanticipated and unintended consequences which illustrate how government, and particularly law enforcement, can use discretionary laws to suppress speech activities in ways that were not considered at the time of their enactment. To pass constitutional muster and forestall constitutional conflicts between journalists and law enforcement officers, any registration system, must contain provisions that preclude officers from demanding to see journalists’ registration papers, and to then detaining, fining, or seizing property from journalists who are not carrying such documentation with them.”


http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/category/drone/




Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on December 15, 2015, 08:50:08 pm



On November 17, 2015 the National Press Photographers Association (“NPPA”), joined by 10 other organizations submitted supplemental comments to the FAA regarding the unintended consequences of drone registration. The groups are concerned that a registration process requiring all drone operators to carry a certificate of registration with them, and produce it on demand to a federal, state or local police official, will be used by police and prosecutors in a pretextual way to chill free speech and freedom of the press. Journalists often encounter this type of interference. Police officers who do not like news coverage of an event often use vague charges like failing to obey a lawful order or interference with officers at an emergency scene to stop journalists.

Writing for the group, NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher, expressed the concern “with these unanticipated and unintended consequences which illustrate how government, and particularly law enforcement, can use discretionary laws to suppress speech activities in ways that were not considered at the time of their enactment. To pass constitutional muster and forestall constitutional conflicts between journalists and law enforcement officers, any registration system, must contain provisions that preclude officers from demanding to see journalists’ registration papers, and to then detaining, fining, or seizing property from journalists who are not carrying such documentation with them.”


http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/category/drone/




(http://smartcanucks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cartoon-hair-on-fire.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on December 16, 2015, 11:03:07 am

This will be nearly unenforceable as it is.  I will register as I want to remain clear of government BS (haha, funny) but I expect injunctions will be filed with this 'directive'.

I still think it's a solution looking for a problem.

Ive not heard of TPD ever enforcing federal aviation law but we'll see...  Might be a lot less hassle to shoot video as a private individual and send out links.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Ed W on December 16, 2015, 07:19:23 pm
Ride a bicycle. You'll learn that police enforce imaginary laws all the time.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on February 05, 2016, 11:05:45 am
Empire State Building Fails to Collapse After Struck by Quadcopter

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/nyregion/new-jersey-man-is-arrested-after-drone-hits-empire-state-building.html?_r=2


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on February 07, 2016, 11:06:30 pm
Empire State Building Fails to Collapse After Struck by Quadcopter

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/nyregion/new-jersey-man-is-arrested-after-drone-hits-empire-state-building.html?_r=2

These guys give the law-abiding hobbyist bad names.   >:(


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on February 09, 2016, 02:53:54 pm
Ive not heard of TPD ever enforcing federal aviation law but we'll see...  Might be a lot less hassle to shoot video as a private individual and send out links.
Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on February 09, 2016, 04:00:21 pm
Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 

But at this point, not until Feb 20th.  Feb 19th is the last day current owners of UAVs have to register their rigs (if they weight between 251 grams and 54.999999 lbs).  There is still legal stuff going on.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Red Arrow on February 09, 2016, 06:21:43 pm
Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA. And NTSB  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration. 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on February 10, 2016, 01:22:41 pm
while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA. And NTSB  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration.

How does that work, hold it in front of them? 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on February 10, 2016, 04:12:49 pm
How does that work, hold it in front of them? 
Yup.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on April 18, 2016, 09:29:02 am
http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It’s the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn’t get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn’t appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: “Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight.”

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That’s not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it’s still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won’t result in instant death for all involved.

http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on April 18, 2016, 10:10:15 am
http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It’s the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn’t get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn’t appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: “Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight.”

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That’s not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it’s still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won’t result in instant death for all involved.

http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649



An airline pilot already has stated something similar in one of his blogs.  Hell, I'm lazy, and I may have already posted the link earlier in this topic, but here it is agin.

https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

But yes, please don't fly these things near airports just for great photos.  It's dumb as hell, not to mention illegal.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on August 04, 2016, 09:59:52 pm
Actually TPD has and will respond to notices of lasers being aimed at aircraft.  Otherwise, as I recall, while local law enforcement can ask to see your Pilot's Certificate and/or Medical (one does not have to surrender them to other than the FAA) and they are required to secure a crash site and notify the FAA.  I suppose under drone registration they could ask to see your proof of registration.  


http://dronelife.com/2016/06/23/jury-votes-not-guilty-la-anti-drone-laws/


An LA filmmaker who was the first person to be charged under LA’s anti-drone ordinance reported that the jury had ruled in his favor.

Arvel Chappell III was both the first person charged under the anti-drone ordinance, and was the plaintiff in the first case to go to trial on a drone-specific criminal charge.  
Chappell was cited and had his drone was confiscated for allegedly flying to close to the LAPD’s Air Support Division immediately after the city of Los Angeles enacted a new anti-drone ordinance.

Chappell’s challenge that the City could not pass drone-related laws due to the FAA’s declared right to be the sole regulators of airspace was upheld by the court.  This led to most of the charges against Chappell being dismissed, leaving only the charge that Chappell – who is an aerospace engineer, in addition to being a filmmaker – operated his drone in a “careless or reckless” way.  The jury voted unanimously that he had not, returning a verdict of “not guilty.”



FAA establishes authority over states considering drone legislation
http://dronelife.com/2015/12/18/faa-fact-sheet-establishes-authority-over-states-considering-drone-legislation


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on August 04, 2016, 10:06:00 pm
http://gizmodo.com/a-drone-hit-a-passenger-plane-and-nothing-happened-1771502262

Earlier today, a British Airways pilot on approach to London Heathrow said that he thought he collided with a drone. It’s the nightmare pilots (and drone operators) fear the most, but according to British Airways, the plane didn’t get a scratch.

The Airbus A320 was flying from Geneva, Switzerland, to London Heathrow. The pilot reported an object hitting the front of the plane, although it doesn’t appear to have caused any damage. A British Airways spokesperson said: “Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight.”

Research suggests that drone being sucked into the engine would only result in injury 0.2 percent of the time. That’s not to say everyone should fly their drones near airports to get some sick photos—it’s still dumb as hell—but that perhaps a drone hitting a plane won’t result in instant death for all involved.

http://gizmodo.com/drones-might-not-be-dangerous-for-planes-after-all-1765160485#_ga=1.120705352.1311319280.1460778649



I forgot to follow up on this in the thread after it happened.

It turns out this report MAY have been...wait for it....a plastic bag.

Jeez.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/

Sure made for a lot of memes in my MC group on FB.  :)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on August 06, 2016, 06:40:40 pm
Your News Drones Interfere With Our Spy Drones
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--11sP97Dl--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/l8nq2ov3ggmfvkd9zogl.gif)


https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/fbi-video-freddie-gray-protests



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on August 07, 2016, 05:26:39 pm

Your News Drones Interfere With Our Spy Drones


I saw that the video is actually from fixed-wing manned craft a mile up, with false regstrations and spy gear that scoops up cell phones by the thousands.
Apparently the FBI doesnt give a crap anymore that people know that, nor that the bulk of their surveillance was cataloging peaceful activity.

Legal drone operators shouldnt have any worries, though. The FBI said they were just reporting activity to the police below, and I didnt hear of any civilians arrested with a drone, so...



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on September 28, 2016, 10:31:46 pm
FAA establishes authority over states considering drone legislation
http://dronelife.com/2015/12/18/faa-fact-sheet-establishes-authority-over-states-considering-drone-legislation


Never mind that, Oklahoma:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/lawmakers-urged-to-use-caution-in-drafting-drone-laws/article_8141c299-d853-5aad-898e-070195bece54.html


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on November 01, 2016, 01:30:04 pm
One of the new laws that went into effect today was H.B.2599, an essentially redundant bill that mimics federal regulation, but with broader, vague language geared towards the petroleum industry.


http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/hB/HB2599%20ENR.PDF


Aside from the predictable You May Not Fly Over a Refinery Unless You Are Higher Than 400 Feet, come prohibitions against flying OVER cell towers (again at less than an altitude of 400 feet).  Flying NEXT to one is apparently OK unless you are over a fenced-in area, or the much harder to interpret "close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility."
Police are exempt, as are SOME commercial drone operators.

Also verboten in Oklahoma is flying over rubber manufacturing facilities, wastewater plants, trucking and railroad yards, steelmaking facilities, dams, and oil or gas pipelines... unless you are higher than 400 feet overhead.



And then there's this:
49 USC Paragraph 40103 – Sovereignty and use of airspace
"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: saintnicster on November 01, 2016, 03:10:37 pm
One of the new laws that went into effect today was H.B.2599, an essentially redundant bill that mimics federal regulation, but with broader, vague language geared towards the petroleum industry.


http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/hB/HB2599%20ENR.PDF


Aside from the predictable You May Not Fly Over a Refinery Unless You Are Higher Than 400 Feet, come prohibitions against flying OVER cell towers (again at less than an altitude of 400 feet).  Flying NEXT to one is apparently OK unless you are over a fenced-in area, or the much harder to interpret "close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility."
Police are exempt, as are SOME commercial drone operators.

Also verboten in Oklahoma is flying over rubber manufacturing facilities, wastewater plants, trucking and railroad yards, steelmaking facilities, dams, and oil or gas pipelines... unless you are higher than 400 feet overhead.



And then there's this:
49 USC Paragraph 40103 – Sovereignty and use of airspace
"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."

Wait a tick, doesn't the FAA say that you aren't supposed to fly _over_ 400 feet up?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 01, 2016, 03:30:18 pm
I think the FAA defines class G airspace as 500 feet. So it gives you a window.

It all makes decent practical sense. Cell towers could be interfered with and mess with thousands of customers. Oil refineries could have some idiot drop a sparkler from a drone. Whatever.  Disappointing in that drone camera footage of rail yards, or flying up keystone dam, or across a refinery would be really cool...


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on November 02, 2016, 02:49:17 pm
Class G Airspace = Airspace not designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E is considered uncontrolled, Class G, airspace. ATC does not have
the authority or responsibility to manage of air traffic within this airspace. In the Eastern U.S., Class G airspace lies
between the surface and 700/1200 feet AGL.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on November 02, 2016, 03:54:26 pm
Problems with law abiding drone operators are few; unfortunately the other category from my experience appears to contain a plethora of members...  Two weeks ago I was traveling cross country through some pretty crowded military airspace in the SE and heard a pilot on an IFR flight plan report a near miss with a drone, and needless to say he was pretty darn excited.  Center asked him "ident" so they could confirm his location and to state his altitude which he did at 9,000 feet which the controller confirmed as what his Mode C was indicating.  They then asked him to estimate the drone's altitude and separation and he reported just below him and less than 100-150 feet off his right side.  The Center Controller stated they had a good radar location and gave him a phone number to call after landing to complete the report; the pilot said thanks and closed with "that was one big chunk of metal that went under my wing."

That's two near misses that I have direct knowledge of... I'm afraid its only a matter of time until a drone makes it into the FAA's collision category.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's not as big of a sky as some may think and we all need to pay attention.

 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on November 02, 2016, 04:41:21 pm
"that was one big chunk of metal that went under my wing."
 

I cant help but wonder if it could have been a fixed-wing drone, given the altitude.  Reports rarely seem to distinguish between copters and Predators, etc.  and in some instances balloons and flying plastic bags.

OTOH, how high can a fly-way go before the battery runs out?

Good to know the rubber manufacturing industry is protected in Oklahoma.  ;)



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on November 02, 2016, 06:35:27 pm
Problems with law abiding drone operators are few; unfortunately the other category from my experience appears to contain a plethora of members...  Two weeks ago I was traveling cross country through some pretty crowded military airspace in the SE and heard a pilot on an IFR flight plan report a near miss with a drone, and needless to say he was pretty darn excited.  Center asked him "ident" so they could confirm his location and to state his altitude which he did at 9,000 feet which the controller confirmed as what his Mode C was indicating.  They then asked him to estimate the drone's altitude and separation and he reported just below him and less than 100-150 feet off his right side.  The Center Controller stated they had a good radar location and gave him a phone number to call after landing to complete the report; the pilot said thanks and closed with "that was one big chunk of metal that went under my wing."

That's two near misses that I have direct knowledge of... I'm afraid its only a matter of time until a drone makes it into the FAA's collision category.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's not as big of a sky as some may think and we all need to pay attention.

 

Either that pilot has eagle-like vision or that was a very good sized drone.  I’m having a hard time believing this was a multi-copter, do most even have enough thrust to handle the air density at 9000 MSL? 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 02, 2016, 11:08:44 pm
Either that pilot has eagle-like vision or that was a very good sized drone.  I’m having a hard time believing this was a multi-copter, do most even have enough thrust to handle the air density at 9000 MSL? 

Not at 9000 feet.  Most transmitters won't even go that far.  That's nearly two miles above sea level.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 03, 2016, 07:54:01 am
Just gonna leave this here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-high-can-a-drone-fly-enthusiast-illegally-flies-drone-to-11000-feet_uk_56e16418e4b096ed3adbaad0


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on November 03, 2016, 09:06:53 am
Not at 9000 feet.  Most transmitters won't even go that far.  That's nearly two miles above sea level.
While I didn't see it I clearly heard the guy on the frequency several times before he reported the near-miss and he was always calm and with the report he was obviously shook up/taking fast...  I didn't hear him again afterward to hear if he calmed down as I was handed off to another sector shortly thereafter. 

As for needing eagle eyes, you often see birds and plastic shopping bags, even the occasional bug that high and when they come nose to nose close believe me you see 'em and take notice. 


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Conan71 on November 03, 2016, 09:34:06 am
While I didn't see it I clearly heard the guy on the frequency several times before he reported the near-miss and he was always calm and with the report he was obviously shook up/taking fast...  I didn't hear him again afterward to hear if he calmed down as I was handed off to another sector shortly thereafter. 

As for needing eagle eyes, you often see birds and plastic shopping bags, even the occasional bug that high and when they come nose to nose close believe me you see 'em and take notice. 

When I was actively flying, I really don’t recall any close calls with smaller objects.  I would get a kick out of the controller advising an air liner they were passing near a smaller aircraft and the reply from the cockpit: “Yes sir, we’ve got it on the metal detector!”

I was not aware you are a pilot, how long have you been punching holes in the air?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vision 2025 on November 03, 2016, 10:42:33 am
When I was actively flying, I really don’t recall any close calls with smaller objects.  I would get a kick out of the controller advising an air liner they were passing near a smaller aircraft and the reply from the cockpit: “Yes sir, we’ve got it on the metal detector!”

I was not aware you are a pilot, how long have you been punching holes in the air?
Grew up flying with my dad and started myself 12 years ago for fun.  Last few years I've spent a bunch of time going from A-B and back for work (we're active in 7 states) and take the occasional fun trip, flew 300+ hours last year...


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on November 29, 2016, 11:39:42 am
http://www.fox23.com/news/man-uses-drone-to-follow-suspects-after-downtown-tulsa-break-in/471128851


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2016, 01:12:20 pm
http://www.fox23.com/news/man-uses-drone-to-follow-suspects-after-downtown-tulsa-break-in/471128851

follows suspects all the way across the street.
drunk bourbon robber was to deaf to notice (or to dumb to care) of the copter hovering overhead.
coincidence of copter already in use feet away from crime.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 29, 2016, 01:59:02 pm
follows suspects all the way across the street.
drunk bourbon robber was to deaf to notice (or to dumb to care) of the copter hovering overhead.
coincidence of copter already in use feet away from crime.

Did you even watch the piece?

1.  Wasn't bourbon, it was scotch.
2.  The drone was being used by the security guard to check for people parking illegally; he used it in this instance to find thieves.


People have misconceptions about drones (which they really shouldn't be called).  It's not like they used it to identify them explicitly.  If you watched the piece, it said the owner/security guard used it to direct police to where these guys were so they could apprehend them.

And yes, I get a little touchy about this because I own two of them (one I built and one I bought).


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 29, 2016, 02:31:11 pm
follows suspects all the way across the street.
drunk bourbon robber was to deaf to notice (or to dumb to care) of the copter hovering overhead.
coincidence of copter already in use feet away from crime.

At a distance of 100' you'd be hard pressed to hear it unless you were trying to.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 29, 2016, 03:25:23 pm
At a distance of 100' you'd be hard pressed to hear it unless you were trying to.

Not so sure about that.  The smaller ones with composite props spin fast enough that I can hear what sounds like a swarm of mad bees from that distance.  But if you're hammered....


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2016, 04:18:50 pm
At a distance of 100' you'd be hard pressed to hear it unless you were trying to.

At that location?  Surrounded by nice sound bouncing buildings?


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2016, 04:23:58 pm
Did you even watch the piece?

1.  Wasn't bourbon, it was scotch.
2.  The drone was being used by the security guard to check for people parking illegally; he used it in this instance to find thieves.


People have misconceptions about drones (which they really shouldn't be called).  It's not like they used it to identify them explicitly.  If you watched the piece, it said the owner/security guard used it to direct police to where these guys were so they could apprehend them.

And yes, I get a little touchy about this because I own two of them (one I built and one I bought).

No, I didn't watch this piece!  I watched a difference pice that was on KOTV last night.
Their story:  A hobbyist quad-coper operator was downtown / was alerted of the burglary.
I don't know why your touchy on bourbon vs scotch or hobbyist vs security guard.   I didn't even use the stupid term "drone"


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 29, 2016, 04:52:38 pm
At that location?  Surrounded by nice sound bouncing buildings?

I agree with your assessment of that.  However, if these guys were hammered they likely ignored or didn't hear it in the auditory fog.  Plus, what could they do?  If it's high enough they better have a Major League arm to do anything about it.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2016, 05:04:22 pm
Plus, what could they do?
Attempt to evade or approach operator menacingly.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Vashta Nerada on November 29, 2016, 07:49:09 pm
No, I didn't watch this piece!  I watched a difference pice that was on KOTV last night.
Their story:  A hobbyist quad-coper operator was downtown / was alerted of the burglary.
I don't know why your touchy on bourbon vs scotch or hobbyist vs security guard.   I didn't even use the stupid term "drone"



The story seems less about UAVs and more about how much TV crime reporting is inaccurate or just made up.


David Bell flies his drone downtown often, mainly just to get beauty shots.
"Pretty amazing little thing," Bell said. Before today, he's never needed to chase down burglars.
An eyewitness saw the break-in happening. That eyewitness was talking to a drone pilot outside The Vault, where the break-in happened, so when the suspects took off, the drone did too.

http://www.newson6.com/story/33809652/drone-helps-chase-down-suspects-in-early-morning-robbery

Vs.

A man in a nearby parking lot said he saw the break-in and told a security guard.
The security guard then used a drone to follow the two suspects.
The security guard told FOX23 he usually uses the drone to catch people illegally parking in the lot.

http://www.fox23.com/news/man-uses-drone-to-follow-suspects-after-downtown-tulsa-break-in/471128851







Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on November 29, 2016, 10:13:06 pm
Attempt to evade or approach operator menacingly.


A good vehicle with decent video transmission could have the operator hiding well away.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 30, 2016, 02:43:11 am
At that location?  Surrounded by nice sound bouncing buildings?

I was thinking more with the background noise and their not right state of mind, and thinking more about the break in and getting away, they would not hear it unless it was on top of them.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on November 30, 2016, 12:25:34 pm
...and now the British tabloid version:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3984734/amp/Security-guard-uses-drone-two-men-suspected-restaurant-robbery.html

We is famous.


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on March 10, 2017, 10:57:53 pm

http://tribunist.com/news/oklahoma-man-shoots-down-construction-companys-legal-drone-video/



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on March 11, 2017, 01:01:00 am
http://tribunist.com/news/oklahoma-man-shoots-down-construction-companys-legal-drone-video/



Always carry your permit.........

(http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/575082_10150997408293690_872761073_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: saintnicster on May 24, 2017, 07:58:00 am
Drone/UAV Registration ruled illegal by a Federal Court of Appeals

Decision - http://www.wolfenstock.com/TaylorvFAA/TaylorFAAOpinion.pdf
Response - https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21674


color commentary http://www.tested.com/tech/613383-no-more-drone-registration-hobbyists/



Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: Hoss on May 27, 2017, 10:24:07 am
Drone/UAV Registration ruled illegal by a Federal Court of Appeals

Decision - http://www.wolfenstock.com/TaylorvFAA/TaylorFAAOpinion.pdf
Response - https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=21674


color commentary http://www.tested.com/tech/613383-no-more-drone-registration-hobbyists/



Which doesn't really matter now, because the government has the data.

It does mean, however, that if anyone asks for my FAA ID for my rig, I'll explicitly say "what ID?".


Title: Re: Remote Controlled Multicopters
Post by: patric on May 27, 2017, 12:40:07 pm
Which doesn't really matter now, because the government has the data.

...and everyone else.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/12/18/faa-finally-admits-names-and-home-addresses-in-drone-registry-will-be-publicly-available/#4e761aec5201

Quote
It does mean, however, that if anyone asks for my FAA ID for my rig, I'll explicitly say "what ID?".

When I studied for the FAA Part 107 I was amazed at how little changed from my high school days taking a Private Pilot course.
They were antiquated then and they are now, but given that, they are still the better choice to govern the air than leaving it to every local LEO.

I have come to agree that some form of accountability should be in place for people to put aircraft in the air, but the FAA execution is sloppy and bureaucratic, and prone to misinformation:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/12/21/attention-model-aircraft-flyers-faa-issues-misleading-registration-guidance-to-law-enforcement

A few months ago the police associations asked Congress to require UAVs to transmit ID numbers in flight so police could identify them.  The particulars of the request seemed to focus not so much on a way to control aircraft as a way to control cameras.


Now there is this:

Trump wants to be able track and destroy drones flying over the U.S.
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/24/15685802/donald-trump-white-house-proposal-track-hack-seize-destroy-drone-flying