Something to remember.

[Dabrain]

"Pilot". Really. Ultimately lets face it, the automation in the mavic and many other drones means to operate them requires no skill set that a real pilot needs. No need for training in aerodynamics, weather, physics, collision regs, emergency procedures, nothing. You push up, it goes up, you push left it goes left.

I think a number of users get something like this and actually delude themselves into thinking they're a pilot and doing something complicated. Like it or not, we're simply operating a computer in charge on a highly automated piece of technology. Automated to the point it shields us completely from having to know how to fly.

He's right - we have a $1000 RC toy to an extent.

Look up the definition of pilot and compare it to your opinion. Then whine about what someone wants to call themselves. Drone operator is probably more acceptable but Drone pilot is by definition correct.

 

[Dennischiayc]

Thanks, but I don't need "to remember" not to fly near an airport LOL. Stupid people do stupid things and then more stupid things happen.

The last thing we need is a reckless ******* to give drone pilots a bad name!

 

[Lon Denard]

The last thing we need is a reckless ******* to give drone pilots a bad name!

Geez, I see this attitude everywhere! One sport bike rider doing a wheelie gives us all a bad name. One G8 GT driver doing a burnout in a Home Depot parking lot gives us all a bad name. One nut job shooting up a movie theater gives all gun owners a bad name. I guess you can all come on here and call people monkeys, idiots or whatever but I'm not sure what you're accomplishing exactly. I drive my car, ride my bike, shoot my guns and fly my drone however I see fit and to my standard of safety/responsibility. Oh and per the LAW, not guidelines or suggestions. If it falls inline with what you believe, hurrah! If not, oh well but no amount of key smashing in the world is gonna make me change my behavior one ounce!

 

[dirkclod]

Guy's let's chill in this abit if you don't mind .


#1

 

[Lon Denard]

No problem...

 

[dirkclod]

No problem...

That was not just directed at you Lon but all .

 

[CoolBreeze]

Awlsome video.

 

[CoolBreeze]

Thanks, but I don't need "to remember" not to fly near an airport LOL. Stupid people do stupid things and then more stupid things happen.

And their will always be Un-smart people.

 

[Abbo69]

Geez, I see this attitude everywhere! One sport bike rider doing a wheelie gives us all a bad name. One G8 GT driver doing a burnout in a Home Depot parking lot gives us all a bad name. One nut job shooting up a movie theater gives all gun owners a bad name.

Sadly with 'drone' mis-use currently being a hot media topic it becomes headline news and any positive use only receiving a few column inches or local news reporting.
Therefore a high percentage of people with no experience of drones cannot rationalise that it is only a few that fly without consideration of others or regard of the rules in comparison to the very many that do.
The vast majority see reports of pet dogs attacking people but can rationalise that this is down to the few owners that rear their dogs to be aggressive and therefore do not hate all dog owners.
They will see idiots driving their cars with no consideration for other road users but will also see a huge number of drivers that drive sensibly and will therefore not hate all drivers.
Etc etc....

 

[postman061]

Just remember, those controllers are professionals and you are nothing more than a toy operator.

Brilliant statement. Just stay away from any type of aircraft. It's easy. There are plenty of places to fly safely.

 

[lisadoc]

The OP's post in raising awareness in air traffic safety and consequential effects due to infringements, whether it's due to a drone, a balloon or a flock of birds should be taken more seriously.

I guarantee you that Gatwick controllers would not shut down arrivals, put aircraft in extended hold patterns, and generally freak out like this if it were a flock of birds (a much greater risk to aircraft than a singular drone of unknown size/location) or a balloon. Large flocks of birds pass by/through Gatwick airspace on an hourly (nay, several minute) basis (take a look at this for a story on actual bird strikes at Gatwick: Aurigny's jet has its third bird strike on way to Gatwick - BBC News) and yet controllers almost never (yes, basically never), reroute traffic based on the real and ever-present hazard of large groups of birds or large birds at the airfield or in their airspace. They couldn't, because if this type of reaction/protocol was in place for dealing with the risk to aviation posed by other flying hazards (birds), no plane would ever be able to fly into/out of Gatwick and the airport would shut down. Risk assessment and hazard mitigation are relevant responses to hazards posed to commercial aviation, and yet this seems to all fly out the window when responding to the yet unproven, but media-hyped, hazard of drones operating near an airfield.

Though the drone operator (if there was a true drone involved) was certainly at fault, blame should also be shared by the Gatwick controllers improper protocol in reaction to a minimal risk to aviation. They did little to aid in the education of the public on real hazards to aviation and did a great disservice to the industries (UAS and commercial aviation) involved.

 

[m0j0]

If it wasn't a drone.

The conversation begins and ends with this for me. I give it no credence, no points, nada, nothing, ZILCH! Until they actually prove it was a "drone." Too many false reports and very little sightings are confirmed with anything other than it was a drone. I saw it. BS!!

I'm in law enforcement, In criminal justice system one of the most unreliable sources of testimony is based on "eye witnesses." I don't trust it until I have multiple independent sources providing the same information. Same goes for drone sightings.

 

[m0j0]

Risk assessment and hazard mitigation are relevant responses to hazards posed to commercial aviation, and yet this seems to all fly out the window when responding to the yet unproven, but media-hyped, hazard of drones operating near an airfield.

Though the drone operator (if there was a true drone involved) was certainly at fault, blame should also be shared by the Gatwick controllers improper protocol in reaction to a minimal risk to aviation. They did little to aid in the education of the public on real hazards to aviation and did a great disservice to the industries (UAS and commercial aviation) involved.

This is a fantastic post. I share the same belief. If it was a "drone" which has not been proven, shame on the drone operator, he/she should not be operating near manned aircraft. The risk to the aircraft though is pretty low.