Attitudes towards drones

[MAJMattMason]

Can you link us to a news article about this?

News

Local, State, and National news coverage: breaking news, politics, business, and top stories from across the region updated hourly.

accesswdun.com

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Thanks. That's really sad.

 

[MAJMattMason]

This could be true for you, but let's just say that people making $150 - $300 / hour would disagree and say it is not true.

I work with guys who make a LOT more than $300/hour flying their drone, so your comment made me laugh. My point being, folks wanting to get in on the action with their Mavic 2 Pro are going to be competing with their clients because practically every real estate agent now has their own drone or one on staff. Same goes for commercial photographers, they simply added the drone to their arsenal. They're ubiquitous.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

This just made me laugh. ( :

I work with guys who make a LOT more than $300/hour flying their drone, so your comment made me laugh.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Again, I think this is an important conversation to be having. Personally, I feel like people should have the right to prevent a drone from flying within their proximity, over their own private property. How this happens is another discussion.. EMP cannon? Bola-net shotgun shells? AI-attack drones that lock onto a menacing drone, fly above them, and dangle strings down until they catch?


It is a 'raging debate' as this article points out:

Can Drones Fly Over Private Property? [And How To Stop Them] - DroneGuru

Drone use in the US is increasing, and not everyone is loving it.

www.droneguru.net

 

[MAJMattMason]

This just made me laugh. ( :

How so?

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

Because I need to find those kinds of clients!

How so?

 

[Joe Collins]

Congratulations on being published! It was very written thought out and written. Cheers!

My feeling is the negative reaction in the public is emotional and not logical. UAVs in civilian hands is relatively new and people need to warm up to it. It's not a logical argument against UAVs and no amount of logic will overcome the objections of some.

For sometime now the general public bristled at the idea of government operated video surveillance systems. Images of 1984 were always brought out. After a while, those systems became acceptable and in some communities enthusiastically welcomed. Now that video surveillance is regularly deployed people barely notice or care. [Yes some people still care. I understand.]

I have been a "street photographer" for years and the reactions from the public have parallels to my drone flying. When the camera comes up to my eye to shoot some people get annoyed, some get down right angry, some strike a pose and some just don't care. However, pull out an iPhone and do the same thing and no one blinks an eye. The arguments for an iPhone and against a 35mm camera are not logical. They are emotional.

UAVs in civilian hands will just have to go through the "break in period" with society. The incidents of people throwing rocks or shooting at them will become less frequent over time. In the meanwhile, pilots like you folks (an me) will just have to continue being good ambassadors for the use of UAVs.

 

[Thomas B]

While other statues such as “peeping Tom” types may apply, as well as statutes about image permissions from people photographed, etc, FAA controls all airspace above the ground. Shooting down a drone falls under the same laws as shooting down an airplane or helicopter.

 

[MAJMattMason]

Because I need to find those kinds of clients!

Get into the film production side of the business. But it's going to take a heavy lift rig and some investment. I've been doing this for over ten years, prior to the onslaught of drones. I was/am a client, and now have my own Part 107 and a drone for grab shots. I don't consider myself a professional pilot. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[anotherlab]

I actually think more people are becoming more accepting/resigned to drones. Almost everyone has one now, so being a professional drone pilot is a pointless pursuit.

That's like saying that because everyone has a pretty good to excellent camera in their phone, being a professional photographer is a pointless pursuit. The business changes, but the people who are professional will stand out from the skilled amateurs. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and he went got his 107 and now does quite well doing drone videography for industrial companies.

 

[RSDonovan]

@Django18

What an excellent post! I will print and keep it. ?

 

[Joe4flight]

Your article is well written. I believe the modifications suggested by Nfhill are a good idea. I also believe a focus on the current positive and potential uses for drones in society needs to pop out more. Being in the medical cannabis industry over the past 6 years has taught me the valuable lesson of focusing on the positives of medical cannabis therapy and not try to combat the plethora of twisted Reefer Madness like lies and faulty research that comes from the opposition. I’ve had public debates with the opposition. After they spew their BS, I simply acknowledge that I agree cannabis be kept out of the hands of children, and then focus on the positives rather than attempt to pick apart each pathetic point made by the opposition. I see similarities here with anti-drone folks. Education is needed. But sometimes even good education will never change their minds and opinions.

 

[ajkm]

... It is creepy, not knowing who is on the other side of the robot camera.
... If all you knew was that it was a flying robot,

... I fly around all the time looking down, filming folks who happen to be in the area where I'm flying, and so do many other people, and while there is nothing technically illegal about this in general, I have to always keep in my mind, "What would I be irritated by, if I were this person noticing this flying robot?"

And here you identify yourself as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution.

Firstly, using the term “robot” is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate. “Flying/airborne camera” would be a far better description and imbued with far less negative emotional content. An RPA/UAV/drone is an aircraft that happens to have a camera - in exactly the same way as some helicopters and fixed wing planes dedicated to aerial phtography

Secondly you say that you “fly around...filming folks” thus instantly identifying that you are prepared to breach people’s privacy and thereby bring the profession into disrepute.

This is, to say the least, an unhelpful attitude and approach to being a remote pilot.

 

[ajkm]

@Django 18: I think a useful addition to the article would be to identify that aerial photography and videography is not just an amateur, hobby activity. There are many professional pilots involved in all types of commercial work, from blockbuster films, to industrial, to artistic.

 

[Tee]

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

Thank you! I really appreciate the way that you articulated your point, you brought out some great points about how some think that their privacy is being invaded, so I will put together a series of shots with my camera using a wide angle lens and one with a zoom lens, and some shots with my drone of the same view, just to show that it don't matter what camera I use while someone is hiking on a hillside or just walking along a trail they are still in the public view, as a photographer I make it a point to try and get to the location as early as possible just to avoid having people in my shots, I don't take close ups of people in public anyway, I think you did an excellent job in your response.

 

[Pilgrim Pilot]

And here you identify yourself as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution.

I do agree with this statement, but not with your meaning, as evidenced with your supporting statements. Me, being someone who flies quadcopters, and has been flying them since 2012, I fully acknowledged that it is creepy for me to see someone else's flying around and looking at me, especially if I can't see where they are flying from.

Hence, my part in this conversation. I am still developing my understanding of this whole situation, and I'm glad we're having this discussion, but it's difficult to have a conversation in response to comments like yours, because you build one false thing on top of another.

You began with this:

Firstly, using the term “robot” is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate.

I think, and perhaps I think wrongly, but I think that if you think a little longer about this, you'll disagree with your statement eventually. These things are robots. It's not inaccurate to state that. We are casting our vision out, sometimes very long distances. These airbots receive instructions from us, and they obey our commands, hopefully. It may not look like Rosie the Maid (yet), but you can even equip your quadcopter with hearing and talking, the ability to grasp and let go of things, and, among other capabilities, the ability to function on its own, performing a mission with logical intelligence, and then return back when it is finished, allowing room for adjustment along the way if some unexpected obstacle or situation takes place.

Is this not a description of a robot?

“Flying/airborne camera” would be a far better description and imbued with far less negative emotional content.

I appreciate your assertion, but I don't change my vocabulary easily, for anyone. I mean what I say and I say what I mean, and if I need to, I'll correct it, but in this case, that's your opinion, and I'll go right along saying robot, drone, whatever happens to come to mind when I'm expressing what I want to say. I enjoy the freedom of speech, and I value language.

All that being said, I agree that there are words that have different connotations to different people, and it is worth being sensitive to whom your audience is. Here, the word drone is used so much, I've begun using it way more than I ever have, and I even rarely say it out loud, instead preferring the term quadcopter, because that's what I've always called them.

Now, the more they become autonomous, I've begun calling them airbots, or robots, or, as our pilot yesterday called our A320 when he switched it into auto-landing mode, "Joey the Opossum." (he tried landing it manually in frozen fog and zero visibility in Denver, aborted at the last second, then turned on the robot.)

Pardon me if my language offends you, but I aim for accuracy when I speak, not your emotions. Usually. ( :

An RPA/UAV/drone is an aircraft that happens to have a camera - in exactly the same way as some helicopters and fixed wing planes dedicated to aerial phtography

I'd mince words here over the word 'exactly' but I'll leave it alone. I'm going snowboarding in a few minutes.

Secondly you say that you “fly around...filming folks” thus instantly identifying that you are prepared to breach people’s privacy and thereby bring the profession into disrepute.

This is, to say the least, an unhelpful attitude and approach to being a remote pilot.

Well, if anyone were to read the comment in context, that's not the jist of what I was saying. If you're going to quote me, at least respond to what I was saying. Don't put words or intents where they don't exist.

As many others have said, in different words, people get filmed by being down on the ground where I happen to be flying around. It's a fact, and it's part of why we are having this conversation. I'm not hiding it, and I'm not saying I'm actually going and "breaching people's privacy."

 

[Ray Dunakin]

I think at least part of the issue is the name. Calling them drones was a mistake IMO. All most people know about drones is that they are high tech military devices used for spying and blowing up people.

 

[BerndM]

Agreed. The media gives these names to things and they unfortunately stick.
Like calling practically all firearms "assault" weapons.

 

[Bigbird48]

While other statues such as “peeping Tom” types may apply, as well as statutes about image permissions from people photographed, etc, FAA controls all airspace above the ground. Shooting down a drone falls under the same laws as shooting down an airplane or helicopter.

True it does, but it will never be prosecuted as such