Attitudes towards drones

[jhe888]

I haven't had anyone complain about me flying mine, but I am sure it will happen.

Remember that some people are morons.

 

[old man mavic]

I haven't had anyone complain about me flying mine, but I am sure it will happen.

Remember that some people are morons.

sadly the second line in you post does not help with acceptance im afraid

 

[1bad]

sadly the second line in you post does not help with acceptance im afraid

It is just Identifying your audience ahead of time so you are prepared to deal with them in the necessary manner

 

[old man mavic]

It is just Identifying your audience ahead of time so you are prepared to deal with them in the necessary manner

no you are making assumptions about them, the same as they make assumptions about you because you are flying a drone

 

[Silverexpress]

To add to your comment, there are drones coming that will be used for transporting actual people. With less moving parts than a helicopter, I see it catching on quick for short trips. And, if solid state batteries truly come to be, for longer trips as well.

Cars, iPhones, and various other devices are imbedded into our society as they have a use which the general public depends on for daily life. So when a car kills somebody, the "risk" of such an event is outweighed by the public necessity for its use. When drones have some application to the general public beyond just fun, then they will be accepted and less vilified. It's going to take a long road to reach that point, if ever. Starting out with activities like SAR, or medication deliveries, etc., can the general public see the value side rather than the onerous side. I think it's going to take a lot more than that, and not necessarily in my lifetime.

 

[GarryB69]

@Django18 firstly I commend you in taking the step to write a reply to the article.
I hope it’s printed and maybe the editor there can be asked if any assistance is required to condense some parts for space considerations, they might help and resubmit to you for final tidying up.

Point 2. Is it not also illegal in the UK to shoot down or otherwise bring down an aircraft ?

Let us know how you go with the publication and their response.
Again, [emoji106]

Yes it is, it’s exactly the same as shooting at a passenger jet in the eyes of the he law.

 

[Ernie Willey]

Well done sir, proof (if it were needed) positive. Also, lovely shot. Thanks for sharing.

View attachment 86655

Fly in a non aggresive way and you'll get this reaction from most wildlife . Notice his front left foot is slighty out, I did and stopped the UAS here knowing this was the closest distance he was comfortable with.

 

[FoxhallGH]

In regard to animals/dogs - I have a lot of video footage of my dog calmly wandering along forest trails from my Mavic flying 1 or 2 metres off the ground and a few metres behind him. he doesn't worry about it ...
I'm interested in the earlier comments [Pilgrim Pilot] about people criticising or not trusting drones because they don't know what they are ... Hmmm - in my experience, negative comments about drones usually always include something about 'spying' or 'privacy' ... There would be very few people who don't know what a drone is, and the few that didn't - would have very little reason to feel threatened by a hovering drone. Curiosity and "What is that?" is what I get when people are not sure ...

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Would I wager that an animal will freak when they see it's in their zone? Absolutely. In the photo above, he pointed out that the deer was about to leave, so he stopped approaching it. If he had gone any further, it would have been in its zone, where it has to make a fight or flight decision, and the deer most likely would have left.

Different animals have different comfort levels with proximity, but put a drone close enough for the animal to reach it, and it will respond in terror.

100% of the time you say? How much would you like to wager?

Technique is everything.

 

[EricJT]

Django 18, as others have said, edit your article down somewhat and format the sentences and paragraphs structure.

Your response to the article is very well thought out and appropriate.

My personal experience is the public is on a spectrum of curiosity through indifference to total dislike. The curious are willing to learn, the indifferent go about their business and the dislikers will maintain their view regardless of the facts to the contrary.

The media exposed the public to the term "drones" when the military started using them for surveillance and war. When I got my first AC back in 2013 I used the term "quadcopter"....much less of an emotional term.

Using opportunities to be good ambassadors for our hobby is well worth it.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Same here .. My dog basically ignores it, but keeps an eye on it, while it is too high for him to reach, but as soon as it is low enough to where he thinks he could get it, he runs over to it and jumps and barks and tries to interact with his teeth.

Once I fly it a foot or two higher, he goes on about his business.

And, for what it's worth, your pet dog could get familiar with it and treat it like nothing, if he sees you aren't reacting to it like it's a threat.

You all are trying real hard to prove a point that just ain't true -- animals *do* in fact respond wildly and often times aggressively or fearfully to drones, once they are within their zone.

In regard to animals/dogs - I have a lot of video footage of my dog calmly wandering along forest trails from my Mavic flying 1 or 2 metres off the ground and a few metres behind him. he doesn't worry about it ...

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

This is the attitude I was referencing when I disagreed with the OP .. that if someone disagrees with you flying your drone, they must be a moron. or audacious. or plain rotten because, well, how could they?!

I haven't had anyone complain about me flying mine, but I am sure it will happen.

Remember that some people are morons.

 

[Scubadiver1944]

I stumbled across an article on the Hastings Online Times (HOT) website about drones last week purely by accident which caught my eye. The author has written many interesting articles on local issues, however as I read this one and the comments people had left on the subject I became increasingly surprised by the negative attitudes and irrational hatred and distrust being expressed at these devices. I began to write a reply of my own to give an alternative viewpoint, however the more I wrote the more I realised a simple reply wouldn’t even begin to cover it, and so it’s in this context that this piece has been written. HOT themselves helpfully suggested I submitted this as a separate article and so this is what I've done. Hopefully it should be published soon. What do you think? I know it's almost certainly too long - I'm rubbish at being concise! Having said that if I've missed anything please let me know!!! Otherise, too strong? About right? Not strong enough?

You can read the original article I was responding to here:

Drone rage

As a drone flier for the last two months after much saving and researching I’m amazed by the level of hate directed at these devices. I understand and respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but so much of it seems to be knee jerk reaction to media headlines and fear of being snooped on rather than based on reasoned thinking. The facts are the vast majority of drone fliers are responsible people who go out of their way to be considerate and not risk their own hobby by bringing it into disrepute. There’s always a few exceptions like the idiot who flew over Gatwick last year. But this is not the norm. Anyone can buy a car and drive it on the public highway. Some motorists break the law and speed, or drive whilst on their phones, or tailgate and are a nuisance or even a safety risk. Should we ban cars? Of course not. I’ll attempt to give a balanced view of the comments I read the most often about drones and which are cited in the replies to the article in question.

1. ‘Drones are an invasion of privacy’. This seems to be the most common issue expressed. So let’s look at this logically. If I go walking on the hills and I see you, am I invading your privacy? No. If I use my phone or even a camera to take a picture of the landscape and you are in it (try taking a picture of almost any Sussex beauty spot with not a soul in it!) then am I invading your privacy? No. You are in a public place and as such are visible to any other member of the public. If I now use a drone to take that same scene from an elevated viewpoint to clear some trees and bins and other clutter, and for a more interesting perspective am I now invading your privacy any more than from ground level? Of course not. I have no interest in what you are doing. In the nicest possible way and with the greatest respect, do you really think you’re that interesting that anyone would want to spy on you? There seems to be a commonly held opinion that just because you might see a drone nearby it must be spying on you. Indeed even in the text of the original article the author states: ‘whoever was operating it, actually hovered it in the sky over our heads, presumably filming or viewing us’. Presumably? This is a huge assumption on which the whole article is based. And then to write about that in the public domain causing people to believe that that’s what it must have been doing is not right in my view. It may well have been watching the author, I’m not in a position to know. However it’s much more likely that it wasn’t. Even if one seems to be hovering nearby it’s most likely not looking at you but is more likely looking horizontally at the scene and the owner is likely checking exposure or focus before taking a picture you don’t feature in. I can promise you that almost all drone owners haven’t spent their good money just to go snooping on everyone they come across. They’ve spent it to further pursue their hobby and interest and open up new creative avenues. Modern life is filled with far more common examples of what could be perceived to be an invasion of privacy that we just don’t seem to notice anymore as they are so commonplace. Traffic enforcement cameras, the much more subtle traffic flow monitoring cameras, CCTV in almost all urban environments, availability of personal information including address details online from sites like 192.com. Yet we don’t take issue or seem to have such strong opinions about many of these because they are commonplace and no longer catch our attention. The occasional low-flying microlight or paraglider only raises glances of admiration and interest, never do I read that the pilots must be spying on us. It seems that because drones are still not an everyday sight, we are not used to them and hence we notice them more when we do see one. We are more wary of it and it’s human nature to be wary of the unknown. But this doesn’t automatically mean that there is some shady reason for it being there.

2. ‘They should all be shot down’. Why? I’ve overheard this one first hand last week when I was out flying - I’ll get to that in a minute. Do you really think it’s ok to destroy someone else’s property just because you don’t personally like it? You’re actually saying it’s ok to destroy someone’s things because you feel like it? If I didn’t like the colour of your car or thought it was too polluting with it’s big engine does this make it ok for me to smash it up or set fire to it? Of course it doesn’t. But using the ‘shoot it down’ logic this would be perfectly acceptable. And if you were to shoot it down, where’s it going to land? You would cause it to crash and possibly cause an accident.

3. ‘Purchasers should show good reason to have one’. A hobby-grade drone weighs about 500g to 1kg for a really expensive one, usually less, typically flies around 35mph max and a battery lasts for 25 minutes at the most. A car weighs 1-2 tonnes, can go over 100mph and can travel for many hours on a tank. A car can do a lot more damage than a drone. Many people are killed every day on the roads. I don’t believe anyone has ever been killed or even injured by a hobby-grade drone. Should we therefore make sure all car purchasers can show a justifiable reason to own a car before they’re allowed to own one? If privacy is the concern then should ladders be banned from sale without good reason in case your neighbour can look over your garden fence? Or how about cameras? They can capture images of people out and about. Should we require anyone buying a camera – or even a phone with a camera – to provide proof of why they need it? For cameras, is a hobby of photography not a good enough reason? That’s usually what people buy drones for too. They’re just a camera that can reach more interesting angles.

4. ‘There should be gun-style licences for public ownership’. To liken a drone to a gun is completely irrational. A gun is designed purely to inflict damage and destruction on whatever you shoot it at. A drone is designed to bring harmless creative opportunities to it’s owner. However just like so many other things there is the potential for misuse if not used responsibly. In these cases it’s not the device that’s at fault, it’s down to the way it’s used. Of course there will always be a small minority who may not respect the rules or fly considerately. I do therefore agree with the need for there to be some form of registration and licensing in the same way as for cars. The CAA has now launched a drone registration service which is mandatory after the end of November 2019 for all drone pilots of drones weighing more than 250 grams in the UK. There are 20 questions to determine good knowledge of the rules you need to abide by as a pilot and you receive a Flyer ID and an Operator ID. The Flyer ID is your confirmation that you achieved a good level of competency and knowledge in the test and your Operator ID identifies you and must be displayed on all drones you fly. Hopefully this requirement will weed out many who may buy a drone casually and not abide by the rules. Rules which are now included in the packaging of almost all drones you can buy in this country and encourage even better practice by making pilots aware of their responsibilities whilst airborne. I have passed this test and have my IDs displayed on my drone as I’m a responsible pilot, just like the majority.

I was actually flying my drone in the hills near Hastings last week just as the sun was rising. It was a beautiful morning and I wanted to try to capture the beauty of the place in the best light. As I was setting up an elderly gentleman out walking his dog stopped and began chatting to me. He was really interested in my drone and watched fascinated as I took off and began to shoot some frosty landscape views. As we chatted and I let him see the controller screen so he could see the view for himself a couple of other elderly gents walking their dogs joined us, friends of the first chap it transpired. They were all interested and found it wonderful to be able to see the beauty of the cliffs by looking back at them from over the sea. As I brought the drone back closer three elderly ladies walked past. One of them noticed the drone hovering off to the side and as they walked away I heard her say to her friends ‘There’s one of those drones, they should all be shot down if you ask me’. The gents I was with were as surprised as I was. I was doing no harm, not invading anyone’s privacy and not causing a nuisance. Even the noise was minimal as you can only hear it when under 50 metres away and most of the time it’s over this and constantly moving, anyone would only ever hear it quietly and for a few seconds. Any passing car causes much more of a racket. I politely asked the lady why she thought this and she just said ‘They’re an invasion of privacy‘. I indicated that I wasn't invading her privacy here in this public place, but she repeated ‘they’re an invasion of privacy, that’s my opinion and I won’t change it’. She seems to see the drone as the physical manifestation of the very concept of invasion of privacy. Yet we were in a public place and I could see her much better up close as she walked past than I could ever see with the tiny wide angle lens on my drone which is designed for taking in huge vistas. I left wondering to myself what had caused this lady to form her opinion and regard what is just a creative tool with such contempt...
View attachment 86562

A measured and well argued piece in response to the irrational views of many of those who oppose our right to photograph/video scenery from an aerial perspective and in which people generally appear no larger than ants.

 

[Scubadiver1944]

If you decide to publish your article, please go back and rewrite it. As you posted it, it contains large blocks of text that are formatted as a single paragraph when they should be written as several. As it is, it is very hard to read and your readers will notice the difference.

Also, consider avoiding being a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. The primary theme of your article seems to be about people forming extreme negative opinions of an activity based on ignorance. Your comment on firearms was exactly that. I found it to be very offensive and I'm there are many in the UK who will also be offended. The firearm reference adds nothing to your point.

Nick

If your critique of Django 18's piece is mainly for its lack of editing expertise, then may I suggest you take a look at some views on this forum (indeed more than a few originating in your neck of the woods) which make his article look like the work of William Shakespeare in comparison, either that or try to increase your attention span.
As for your attitude criticising his stance on firearms offensive to you that drones are being unfairly compared to weapons of mass destruction (which they undoubtedly are designed to be) then I beg to differ and perhaps the relatives of those who've died (in the region of averaging 30,000 per year in your country alone and overall more than all Americans killed in the Civil War and World Wars One and Two combined) by such weapons, might have a view that Django 18's view is more rational than that of the gun lobby that raises its head so often on this site if they face the slightest criticism.

 

[Detritalgeo]

I wonder if Hollywood has an impact here.. Just recall the nefarious death drones in the Oblivion film..

 

[BenF]

My 2 cents on knowing who’s flying the drone and privacy.
DJI is making an application that will identify the WiFi signal. Once tied into their database, (Its my understanding that the information to be released is T.B.D.) it will be available to the concerned individual. Traffic cameras ticket the car owner and not the driver, toll cameras bill the owner, not the driver. A badly flown drone could be identified and the owner held responsible if the technology was implemented in drones deemed to be of concern.
That being said, would the concerned citizen be more confident knowing I have 5 crashes under my belt, or no crashes. A newbie has no flights and no crashes.
A landing not near the home point is probably a crash, but not always.
On the privacy issue, In Oklahoma, there is fence law. No drones over fenced property. When I was there taking pictures for a friend, I had to always be aware of the surrounding properties. If one is really concerned, then get a local or state ordinance passed like Oklahoma’s.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

For what it's worth, I think everyone in here so far has shared rational and fairly thought-out stuff.

The future is approaching quickly, and as some have said, it is already here, just unevenly distributed. There are sections of society where people are already using humanoid robots to go out and do their bidding on a daily basis, and nobody is none the wiser. Eventually, robots of many shapes and sizes will be roaming Earth alongside us.

My opinion regarding automated cars is that they should drive on roads intended just for them, so that their problems stay in their arena, and people who drive regular, non-software-automated cars, can be sure that every car around them is under the control of a human being who can make choices that robots never will be able to reliably.

That opinion doesn't seem to carry over to drones and whatnot, and that's part of why I think this conversation is essential for people to have and continue to have.

All of that, but it is important to remember that others will have different opinions, and if you don't like someone because of what they say, maybe check yourself. I like learning about people, and hearing their ideas, and agreeing and disagreeing, but not if I feel like they're on one side now and I'm joining a group on the other, and from now on that's our ranks.

Chill. If you're chill, ( :

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

I'm glad you said that. I've always preferred calling my quadcopters quadcopters, but typing drone is so much faster, and people don't say "What?" as often when I use the word drone, but you're right -- the word drone has that emotional element for some people that the word quadcopter doesn't.

the term "quadcopter"....much less of an emotional term.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

Would I wager that an animal will freak when they see it's in their zone? Absolutely. In the photo above, he pointed out that the deer was about to leave, so he stopped approaching it. If he had gone any further, it would have been in its zone, where it has to make a fight or flight decision, and the deer most likely would have left.

Different animals have different comfort levels with proximity, but put a drone close enough for the animal to reach it, and it will respond in terror.

Their "zone" as you put it was earlier implied to be a space in which they notice the UAS. Now you're defining it as the comfort zone.

Same thing can be applied to people and any living thing with a sense of self preservation. You fly too close and they too become uncomfortable. Your point earlier was written in a way that one can't get close to wildlife without them acting wild and freaking out, you know you what you did...

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

I acknowledge that's a valid interpretation of where the conversation was, but my intent and words were true, and I don't have to change them for them to remain true, now that it is clearer what I meant. See this post for my part there..

https://mavicpilots.com/threads/attitudes-towards-drones.76868/post-870582

Their "zone" as you put it was earlier implied to be a space in which they notice the UAS. Now you're defining it as the comfort zone.

Same thing can be applied to people and any living thing with a sense of self preservation. You fly too close and they too become uncomfortable. Your point earlier was written in a way that one can't get close to wildlife without them acting wild and freaking out, you know you what you did...