RC Drone Crashes onto White House backyard

[CadetSnuffy]

Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc

[darn] I was all ready to flame you to kingdom come.....then I saw /sarc.

Nicely played. 

There are many people who still hold that sentiment. They don't see that many people enjoy drones just as much as people enjoy football. There is risk in almost every activity, does that mean that the activity should be banned?

[lordmonar]

Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc

[darn] I was all ready to flame you to kingdom come.....then I saw /sarc.

Nicely played. 

There are many people who still hold that sentiment. They don't see that many people enjoy drones just as much as people enjoy football. There is risk in almost every activity, does that mean that the activity should be banned?

Also there is the problem of terminology.

I'm a RPA maintainer.  I work an MQ-1 and MQ-9 Ground Control Stations.  Sometimes people say "drones"  they mean the Predator, Reaper, and that class of aircraft.   Sometimes when they say "drone" they mean those $1000 RC, camera platforms that are out there, and sometimes they mean those $20 "drones" you buy at the mall kiosk that never last more the a week.

[CadetSnuffy]

In this case we are (hopefully) referring to the model quadcopters.

[sardak]

This is how it should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=984tPA7k3yg

Then imagine it with those Roman candles.

Mike

[go4spaatz]

I feel that I am qualified to weigh in on this conversation, as I built my own Quadcopter UAV (fully autonomous, 20 min flight time, wireless video system). It took me a few weeks, some broken props, and I became a qualified Amateur Radio operator to get wireless video.

I think there is much confusion in the media, especially about the actual name "drone". Personally, I believe it should only refer to aircraft (or water or ground vehicles) that have an autonomous, or computer-assisted navigation and control system. I see way too many articles where the media refers to a cheap RC quad as a "drone", where really it is fundamentally the same as an RC plane, which no one seems to have a huge problem with. (Incidentally, the DIY drone community was built on fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters!)

Which is why I prefer to use the UAV/UAS designation rather than "Drone" as it clearly labels it 'autonomous'. There is in my mind a HUGE distinction between the incredible autonomous vehicles people build and buy, and a RC quadcopter with a GoPro slapped on. I am a huge supporter of a formal defining line between the two.

[CadetSnuffy]

I think there is much confusion in the media, especially about the actual name "drone". Personally, I believe it should only refer to aircraft (or water or ground vehicles) that have an autonomous, or computer-assisted navigation and control system.

Must every drone possess these qualities? The word drone originates both from the autonomous nature of bee drones, but also from the similar buzzing sound that both bee's wings and the drone's propellers produce while in flight. The public has a more general definition of "drone" than you do, but keep in mind that even the cheapest RC "drone" has similarities with even the most advanced drones.

I see way too many articles where the media refers to a cheap RC quad as a "drone", where really it is fundamentally the same as an RC plane, which no one seems to have a huge problem with. (Incidentally, the DIY drone community was built on fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters!)

It is true that the word "drone" is often overused and misused, but how much tech must a quadcopter possess to qualify for your definition of "drone"? Many larger commercial quadcopters have GPS guidance that can return the aircraft back to its launch position if it were to lose connection with the transmitter.

[Eclipse]

There is in my mind a HUGE distinction between the incredible autonomous vehicles people build and buy, and a RC quadcopter with a GoPro slapped on. I am a huge supporter of a formal defining line between the two.

Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?

That is a distinction irrelevant to the general public, and important only to the hobbyists involved.

This is no more important to the average person then the difference between a CRJ-700 and a 767.
It's just a "plane" unless they are deciding on their seat.

[go4spaatz]

Must every drone possess these qualities? The word drone originates both from the autonomous nature of bee drones, but also from the similar buzzing sound that both bee's wings and the drone's propellers produce while in flight. The public has a more general definition of "drone" than you do, but keep in mind that even the cheapest RC "drone" has similarities with even the most advanced drones.

It is true that the word "drone" is often overused and misused, but how much tech must a quadcopter possess to qualify for your definition of "drone"? Many larger commercial quadcopters have GPS guidance that can return the aircraft back to its launch position if it were to lose connection with the transmitter.

I do see the reasoning behind your statements, and I agree that "drone" may not be the word to use. But we need to come to a consensus in the model/aviation realm about what to call them, and educate the public on that decision (wishful thinking, I know  )

Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?

Either way it's a big problem, but I think it does make a difference whether it was autonomous when it crashed, or if it was under pilot control. An autonomous crash would be a way bigger setback to the hobby UAV community than a RC crash would be to their circles (JMHO). So it might not change the WH conversation, but it would definitely affect the overall 'drone debate'.

[CadetSnuffy]

Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?

Either way it's a big problem, but I think it does make a difference whether it was autonomous when it crashed, or if it was under pilot control. An autonomous crash would be a way bigger setback to the hobby UAV community than a RC crash would be to their circles (JMHO). So it might not change the WH conversation, but it would definitely affect the overall 'drone debate'.

The issue is more the public's view on all UAV systems. Most knowledgeable people would readily agree that the fault does not lie in the system, but in the guy who gets himself intoxicated and decides to fly his new RC quadcopter around. Realistically, anything could become potentially dangerous if misused. The most notable cases being: guns, large vehicles, and poisonous chemicals. The solution, therefore, is not limiting who gets them, but making sure the people who get them are educated in safety. The general public's opinion is based solely on the articles that appear on the newspaper, not on any actual thought.

[CadetSnuffy]

Just saw this article on the AMA website.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/mediaroom/2015/01/29/usa-today-educate-dont-regulate-drone-fliers-opposing-view/

"The fact is for the past six years, existing regulation has specifically prohibited the flying of unmanned aircraft anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This recent incident clearly demonstrates that a regulatory approach to the recreational use of small unmanned aircraft does not and will not work." (quote from article)

It is important to note that regulations are already tight enough. (doesn't stop the average uninformed "Joe" from flying in a restricted area)

"Many well-meaning individuals acquiring this new technology simply don't know what airspace is restricted or prohibited, whether it's near the White House, around other federal buildings or even the upcoming Super Bowl. The best way to prevent drone incidents isn't to regulate recreational users; it's to educate them." (quote from article)

Which is why education NOT regulation is the right path. This website provides FAA regulations for those wondering what they are.

http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/

[CadetSnuffy]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4031683402001/a-look-at-what-drones-can-actually-do/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips

An editor for Popular Science stressing the importance of regulations and the dangers of drones, while being completely irresponsible with the drone he is using and crashing it in the news studio.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2015/02/AMA-Letter-to-Popular-Science.pdf
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2015/02/AMA-Letter-to-Fox-News.pdf

Letters from the AMA to Popular Science and to Fox News concerning their irresponsible actions.

[Spam]

Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam

[CadetSnuffy]

So, basically a counter signal that would make it impossible to fly drones within a certain radius? Wouldn't that interfere with other radio systems?

[SarDragon]

Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam

There are dozens of allocations within that freq range, and many of the bands are shared. How do you propose to implement such a system?

[JeffDG]

Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam

There are dozens of allocations within that freq range, and many of the bands are shared. How do you propose to implement such a system?

And what of a pre-programmed drone.  Give it a set of commands like "Climb to 200', go 200 yards North, hover for 60 seconds, go 200 yards south, descend to 10', shut down"

[Spam]

I'm speaking about limited area defense solutions, of course, not a large footprint, lest you think I'm proposing shutting down all RC use.

Jeff, there are dozens and dozens, yep. There are smart algorithms that can filter and sort but even if not, broadband EW would break the C2 link. The west wingers may have to accept loss of some personal RF connectivity outside of shielded areas. In my opinion, that would be worth it, as to leave your cell and all personal electronics outside your work area every day is no big deal.

As far as preprogrammed threats, sensors and directional CMs are an answer.  Consider that the RC may not have crashed; it may have been taken down crossing the perimeter in accordance with SOP.
V/R,
Spam

[CadetSnuffy]

I do see the reasoning behind your statements, and I agree that "drone" may not be the word to use. But we need to come to a consensus in the model/aviation realm about what to call them, and educate the public on that decision (wishful thinking, I know  )

http://flitetest.com/articles/what-is-a-drone

Here is a link to a video that discusses the issue of what should be and what should not be classified as a drone. It is obvious that everyone has differing opinions on this matter.

btw, that website has many other useful videos concerning model aircraft.

[CadetSnuffy]

"What is a Drone?

The dictionary defines the word drone when used as a noun as the following;

-The male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
-An unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.

b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.
-A person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
-A drudge.                                           

I asked a few folks this question, "what is a drone" to get an idea of what the public's view or understanding of a drone is. I think the results speak for themselves.

Baby Boomers:

Don – "They are used by the military for spying and such, but they can also be a toy helicopters with a camera on it. I wouldn't call a remote ground vehicle a drone, it has to fly"

Robin – "Drones came from the old days when they would convert old aircraft to remote control and turn them into targets. Target drones they were called"

Craig – "I think of grammar school biology"

Generation Xers & Millennials:

Alexis – "I think of Sky Net" (from the Terminator movies)

Doug – "Something to bring me a beer" (from recent media commercials)

Matt – "When I hear the word drone I think of UAV's, like they use in the military"

Mikkel – "Unmanned semi-autonomous Flying Objects"

Shawn – "It's an unmanned aerial platform that is assigned a mission"

FPV pilots:

Pilot 1 – "DJI F450, Blade 350QX, DJI Phantom" (all available to civilians at a low cost)

Pilot 2 – "Predator MQ-1" (a deadly military strike drone)

Pilot 3 - "A drone is a remotely autonomous robot that's capable of taking a series of instructions without real time/controlled human intervention."

Using the word "Drone" to identify a model airplane is like using the word vehicle to identify a bicycle. The term drone is much too broad to use in any constructive way when talking about the nuances of pilotless aircraft and their use in the civilian airspace. As you can see from my results, each and every person I asked has a different definition and perspective concerning the word drone."

Excerpt from article at: http://flitetest.com/articles/the-drone-revolution#sthash.E4D5AOmf.dpuf

More opinions about the usage of the word "drone"

[Al Sayre]

... -A person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer 

I think of politicians

[LSThiker]

In some states, a bicycle is legally a vehicle and is subject to the same laws