I am attaching here today's WSJ article. It is self explanatory.
Wall Street Journal Article Saturday
- Thread starter Dale D
- Start date
I am really shocked that by now, noon time eastern time in USA yours has been the only response. I thought this article would stimulate a ton of conversation.
StantonZ
Well-Known Member
Don't read as early/often on the weekends as I do during the week, but thanks for posting since I may not have seen it at all. We will continue to see stories like this as long as the detection/intercept technologies are still in development...and as long as a few bad apples over shadow the majority of "good" flyers. I admit I'm a bit surprised at the sharp increase in folks flying around what are obviously restricted airspace (like airports).
When it comes to economics sometimes I'll believe the Wall Street Urinal. But IMO as it pertains to this article it wreaks of a conclusions looking for facts. While the face value would like you to believe it is news, the lead words in the header "Risk Rises" looks like an agenda chasing facts.
You see, those that want to control others use fear as their primary motivational tool. "Risk Rises"- translation: BE AFRAID.
The article goes on to say "Drone incursions into the Los Angeles Airport restriced space"... What it does not say is how many those had ATC authorization. No mention, either approved or denied. Think about the fact that DJI has what, 70% of the drone market and geofences LAX, O'Hare and other RZ's and NFZ's. The blogger (I cannot bring myself to use the words "writer" or "journalist") cites one ancient example of a a single drone that made it's way onto the Whitehouse lawn SIX YEARS AGO, but obviously cannot cite a single example of an actual incident that happened in the last three. Edit: May I add that DJI, again with a 70% market share, has the entire DC area geofenced.
You will also note that they didn't reach out to any UAV organization for comment, but mostly spewed opion of what I believe is just a little shy of the story of "Chicken Little". Considering the thousands and thousands of drones that fly each day and the extraordinarily limited report of incidents, a rational person would think this is either a non story, or one of "Look at how many millions safely enjoy new perspectives". Instead we get "Potential Doomsday in the Sky".
I guess Brett Forrest and Brian McGill are doing a happy dance because of the payday they got (minimal as it was) from WSJ, but IMO they certainly didn't do anything to bolster the reputation of the jourlism community while at the same time denegrating the UAV community.
Edit: One more thing... You will note that the illustration they used is in the LA area, a densely populated area and one of the most beautiful an scenic areas in the country if not the world, with gorgeous year-round lighting. Of course it is a magnet for thousands of photographers and film makers. If you look at the "high density incursions" that is notated on the bloggers' illustration the highest number of drone flights is 2 miles south of LAX in Class B space. You can't tell me that with that many "incursions" the FAA wouldn't be out policing the area? Again, I refer to the lack of any mention of data regarding ATC authorizations, nor does it mention the type or altitude of drones being flown. I'm pretty certain that 100' AGL 2 miles from LAX isn't going to be an issue to get authorization.
Edit: Hopefully one last thing... It is people like bloggers Brett Forrest and Brian McGill, that I think the plan of soon to be implemented RID, revealing controller locations and pilots is dangerous. It puts a target on all our backs from rabid anti-droners like them who want to incite others to be just like them.
You see, those that want to control others use fear as their primary motivational tool. "Risk Rises"- translation: BE AFRAID.
The article goes on to say "Drone incursions into the Los Angeles Airport restriced space"... What it does not say is how many those had ATC authorization. No mention, either approved or denied. Think about the fact that DJI has what, 70% of the drone market and geofences LAX, O'Hare and other RZ's and NFZ's. The blogger (I cannot bring myself to use the words "writer" or "journalist") cites one ancient example of a a single drone that made it's way onto the Whitehouse lawn SIX YEARS AGO, but obviously cannot cite a single example of an actual incident that happened in the last three. Edit: May I add that DJI, again with a 70% market share, has the entire DC area geofenced.
You will also note that they didn't reach out to any UAV organization for comment, but mostly spewed opion of what I believe is just a little shy of the story of "Chicken Little". Considering the thousands and thousands of drones that fly each day and the extraordinarily limited report of incidents, a rational person would think this is either a non story, or one of "Look at how many millions safely enjoy new perspectives". Instead we get "Potential Doomsday in the Sky".
I guess Brett Forrest and Brian McGill are doing a happy dance because of the payday they got (minimal as it was) from WSJ, but IMO they certainly didn't do anything to bolster the reputation of the jourlism community while at the same time denegrating the UAV community.
Edit: One more thing... You will note that the illustration they used is in the LA area, a densely populated area and one of the most beautiful an scenic areas in the country if not the world, with gorgeous year-round lighting. Of course it is a magnet for thousands of photographers and film makers. If you look at the "high density incursions" that is notated on the bloggers' illustration the highest number of drone flights is 2 miles south of LAX in Class B space. You can't tell me that with that many "incursions" the FAA wouldn't be out policing the area? Again, I refer to the lack of any mention of data regarding ATC authorizations, nor does it mention the type or altitude of drones being flown. I'm pretty certain that 100' AGL 2 miles from LAX isn't going to be an issue to get authorization.
Edit: Hopefully one last thing... It is people like bloggers Brett Forrest and Brian McGill, that I think the plan of soon to be implemented RID, revealing controller locations and pilots is dangerous. It puts a target on all our backs from rabid anti-droners like them who want to incite others to be just like them.
Last edited:
ckoerner
Well-Known Member
Adding to the criticism regarding that graphic. That heat map is misleading. If the high in March was say 800 drones being tracked (it’s not clear if the bar chart below is for the same area around LAX or just all drones tracked by the company) then that’s 26 drones a day being tracked (800/31) in total for the given geographic area.
The dark red “high number” area has to represent a number of drones fewer than that. Drones are tracked elsewhere in the lower concentrated area of the map.
So the “high number” makes it sound like there are dozens of drones flying around at the same time, but in reality it’s probably only a few. Instead of saying “low” or “high” a more direct, and in my opinion, honest chart would use numbers.
The dark red “high number” area has to represent a number of drones fewer than that. Drones are tracked elsewhere in the lower concentrated area of the map.
So the “high number” makes it sound like there are dozens of drones flying around at the same time, but in reality it’s probably only a few. Instead of saying “low” or “high” a more direct, and in my opinion, honest chart would use numbers.
ckoerner
Well-Known Member
Here’s the website for the “drone-tracking” company mentioned in the article.
www.whitefoxdefense.com
WhiteFox Defense | Drone Airspace Security
WhiteFox Defense is the leader in drone airspace security. Pioneering the safe integration of drones in society and keeping the skies open for pilots.
www.whitefoxdefense.com
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the companies providing this data led this article. Great way to advertise your business by using a ‘news’ article to promote a perceived threat. And you can rely on a journalist to add drama instead of realistic and researched facts.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,964
- Age
- 62
Hi mate, I think these drone detection gizmos pick up the wifi or other such controller signals, so as long as it's controlled with some sort of signal controller to drone, they'll pick it up.
Good to see other companies putting their tech into the ring with DJI, Aeroscope has been trialled here in Oz at many airports, maybe our airspace managers and CASA have some more choice now too.
Hi Mate,
That’s true but the pilot and owner is anonymous. They can locate the source of transmission with some accuracy but anyone intent on doing wrong would likely be aware of this and keep moving.
I’m sure there are people in the criminal community that have the knowledge to build their own drones such as the many FPV type out there that won’t include any manufacturer installed security or government mandated system. They’ll always be one step ahead.
It would be interesting to know if CASA has a similar ‘incursion’ map for our country.
Cheers Mate.
I have to wonder myself how many of the flights depicted in the graphics of the article were perfectly legal flights that had LAANC or DroneZone approval and posed absolutely ZERO threat to manned aviation.
When an article is published it would really be nice if they would present it in a more true and factual form instead of sensational alarmist fashion. Of course the article just wouldn’t have that eye catching, adrenaline pumping appeal that sells news papers.
It is a sad state of affairs when most news papers look more like the National Enquirer than reputable journalism. Yet even worse are the talking heads and Action News teams scouring the cities. Please! Report the facts and withhold the opinions of the situations for the editorial section where conjecture can have its place.
When an article is published it would really be nice if they would present it in a more true and factual form instead of sensational alarmist fashion. Of course the article just wouldn’t have that eye catching, adrenaline pumping appeal that sells news papers.
It is a sad state of affairs when most news papers look more like the National Enquirer than reputable journalism. Yet even worse are the talking heads and Action News teams scouring the cities. Please! Report the facts and withhold the opinions of the situations for the editorial section where conjecture can have its place.
Last edited:
While somewhat tangential to the thread, my signature used to be a variant of the following, gleaned from a few modern day thinkers. It said:
"Assuming is not knowing. Knowing is NOT Understanding. There is a difference between compassion and wisdom. Compassion cannot supplant wisdom, and wisdom cannot occur without understanding."
It appears that journalism for the most part no longer exists. It seems to me that the purpose of journalism should be, and perhaps was, to provide sufficient information, looking at both proponents and opponents of any issue so the reader can come to, at least, a BALANCED understanding. We are witnessing once reputable organizations such as th NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Washington Post, WSJ that in the past at least attempted to present news. Opinions were put on the editorial page where we knew they were someone's conclusions presenting a point of view. Today, many of these once prestigious organizations don't even pretend to be fair and balanced. They push issues that meet their agendas and squelch those that don't. I'm not sure why they would willingly do that, but in doing so they don't realize the immense power they wield and the terrible, irreparable and permanent unintended consequences that become of their foolish activities.
"Assuming is not knowing. Knowing is NOT Understanding. There is a difference between compassion and wisdom. Compassion cannot supplant wisdom, and wisdom cannot occur without understanding."
It appears that journalism for the most part no longer exists. It seems to me that the purpose of journalism should be, and perhaps was, to provide sufficient information, looking at both proponents and opponents of any issue so the reader can come to, at least, a BALANCED understanding. We are witnessing once reputable organizations such as th NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Washington Post, WSJ that in the past at least attempted to present news. Opinions were put on the editorial page where we knew they were someone's conclusions presenting a point of view. Today, many of these once prestigious organizations don't even pretend to be fair and balanced. They push issues that meet their agendas and squelch those that don't. I'm not sure why they would willingly do that, but in doing so they don't realize the immense power they wield and the terrible, irreparable and permanent unintended consequences that become of their foolish activities.
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
Air 3 NC500 - the iconic Kylesku Bridge!- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 1
-
Forum statistics
