Literal NIMBY?

Literal NIMBY

🙂

There are drones and then drones

It might be one of those little ones that are just for messing around. A gust of wind and those things will struggle to fly against it. It’s very different to the pro-style jobs with HD/4K cameras

Exactly benp1. I’m quite happy to fly my little toy Syma at the local park (away from other people) because it is so small and light that even if it went crazy and flew into someone it’d be unlikely to even leave a scratch.

I’d like a bigger more capable quad (currently eyeing up FPV racing quads) but if I got one I’d need somewhere safer to fly it as it could do a lot more damage. Common sense really.

And full disclosure: I have lost my toy one in someone’s garden and done the subsequent walk of shame to find it (after stupidly giving my brother-in-law a go when it was a bit windy) 😳

My next door neighbour as a kid was a miserable git and refused to give us back our balls when they went over the fence. It was a glorious day when he scored an own goal and replaced the fence with one of those ones with concrete posts and wooden panels slid in between. It was almost worth a square cut for six so that you could justify a stealth night time mission under the fence panel (held up by my father who thought the old sod was a bell) to mooch around his flower beds to find the ball.

Maybe they need to invent rescue drones for retrieving errant crashed drones (and balls) from miserable neighbours gardens.

Maybe they need to invent rescue drones..

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6bytXHLjuY[/video]

😀

cookeaa – Member

I saw one up over our, and our neighbours back gardens the other day, went about 60-70′ straight up and held position for a good couple of minutes, plenty of time to pan a camera round and get a good look at the contents of gardens, sheds and through the odd window.

With its potato camera. Cheap drones wouldn’t tell you much more than you can get from google maps unless it gets right up close. “there’s a blurry shed in there!” “Looks like it might have a door of some sort”

Mmmm.. not really..

This is raw test footage that I took while experimenting with attaching a £20 keyring camera (an 808 #16) to my £15 toy drone with a rubber band!

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeFGp-UuQOw[/video]

Granted it’s hardly cinematic quality, but it shows what can be done very cheaply.

Yep- like I say, nothing that’s going to be very useful to a thief, unless it gets up close.

^^I’d say that is Google Maps quality, unless you really close.

I have an autonomous Drone and there are very few places I can use it, due to the rules and the public perception. I have been in the countryside, 2 fields away from anyone, so probably 300m if not more and have had a person walk across the two fields to tell me I cannot fly it, even though I have permission from my friend who owns the field. I was well within the rules, yet had to stop as he was now less than 50m from my drone.

People see a drone and get angry for no reason at times, I blame the media for hating drones since before they were available to the public.

I bought it for getting some footage while riding, but there are very few places in this country that allow a drone and the places that do I am very wary of using it due to public perception and people getting angry.

Cheap drones wouldn’t tell you much more than you can get from google maps

What’s cheap? You can get what I originally set up for monitoring crop trials for a couple of hundred off Ebay now.

PS – as a CAA Permission holder I’d have told him to do one too OP. I wouldn’t have even looked in the garden till it was convenient to me. It’s use like this that creates the hysteria around them, and makes it more difficult for legitimate professional or hobbyist use.

Any examples of this? I’m struggling to see how a criminal would find a drone useful.

Here you go then. (we get them dropping at the jail I work in too)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37152665

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/15/inmates-increasingly-look-drones-smuggle-contraband-into-their-cells/102864854/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/21/man-jailed-for-using-drone-to-fly-drugs-into-prisons

http://uk.businessinsider.com/specialist-uk-police-squad-stops-drones-smuggling-drugs-to-prison-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

It’s difficult to make rules that cover “drones” when you are taking about everything from this:

To this:

Someone flying a toy one getting it wrong and dropping it into your garden is a bit of a pain, but not really doing any harm. But if it was a bigger one I’d be having some stern words.

rone: As I understand it the Article 95 regulations (that detail the 50m/150m restrictions) only apply to “small unmanned surveillance aircraft” – so the presence of a camera does seem relevant.

Yeah welcome to constant lack of clarity that are the CAA.

When we did our permissions I’m pretty sure that this order was relevent to both types SUA/SUSA but they’d added clarity to the SUSA because they are likely to be the drones that the public use.

I.e you cans still be in violation of the rules with an SUA (i.e no camera) if you fly below 50m near person or property as you violate the endangerment to person or property – air navigation order.

Same with the 150m over congested area. If prosecuted.

We often find contradictions with the CAA’s articles and revisions. But thanks for showing me that.

People should not keep saying they’re toys. In the eyes of the law and the CAA they’re not.

A small drone can be quite dangerous if it hits you in the face. The CAA are playing catch up with technology and will probably have to have another weight class at some point.

People see a drone and get angry for no reason at times, I blame the media for hating drones since before they were available to the public.

I have a perfectly good reason; I consider my home (including the back garden) to be private, and using a ‘Drone’ or any other device to spy on me and my family is an invasion of our privacy IMO…

IDGAF how awesome the twaz-copter is, why fly it over a residential area when there’s a perfectly good park within easy walking distance?

With its potato camera. Cheap drones wouldn’t tell you much more than you can get from google maps unless it gets right up close. “there’s a blurry shed in there!” “Looks like it might have a door of some sort”

TBH I couldn’t make out much detail of the thing, I simply noted it’s presence (high up and relatively quiet), and that it had a good vantage point for snooping on between 6-8 properties including mine, I don’t really care what quality any footage might be, that it could be shot at all is my issue…

I get that people want to use them to shoot various sports (including MTBing), and race them and I think that’s fine, I’m not dead set against their use for delivering stuff or even assisting the emergency services. But you have to agree that unwanted and anonymous intrusion into peoples privacy is simply going to get the authorities to clamp down all use legitimate or not…

Update: I just checked and there is a distinction between folk who are doing it commercially and then SUA/SUSA is blended together.

The ‘dronecode’ however that the CAA currently publish for the regular punter makes no distinction and assumes the same rules for just a ‘drone’.

The point being it’s likely to still be a problem flying below these numbers.

What a mess!

People should not keep saying they’re toys. In the eyes of the law and the CAA they’re not.

Yes they are. Well the one’s that are used recreationally are. To not understand that just portrays your lack of understanding of the english language. If the CAA also believe this they are also culpable (CAA and accurate use of the english language have never been good bedfellows). The word toy does not mean soft, cuddly, inoffensive or inert. It is used to describe something as a recreational object designed to give pleasure. Consumer ‘drones’ are toys – plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise needs to learn to talk proper!

Yes they are. Well the one’s that are used recreationally are. To not understand that just portrays your lack of understanding of the english language. If the CAA also believe this they are also culpable (CAA and accurate use of the english language have never been good bedfellows). The word toy does not mean soft, cuddly, inoffensive or inert. It is used to describe it as a recreational object designed to give pleasure. Consumer ‘drones’ are toys – plain and simple. Anyone who says otherwise needs to learn to talk proper!

Could do without the insult.

Define a ‘consumer’ drone?

Some people use a phantom 4 to fly for fun others make money from them.

Help me out here?

Help me out here?

Really? It’s the use not the model that makes it recreational. Every drone used for use other than commercial gain (or training for commercial gain) is being used as a toy.

Isn’t there a difference between ‘recreational use’ and a ‘toy’?
My ‘toy’ could cut me up pretty badly. Just search on you tube for how toy-like some of these drones are.

You just categorised ‘consumer’ drones…

So is a P4 a consumer drone or a commercial one?

So you are saying intent of the pilot is the issue not the type of drone?

Yeah welcome to constant lack of clarity that are the CAA.

Yeah the CAA’s own DroneSafe site implies that the 150/50m limits apply to all drones – which doesn’t match with the regs. 🙄

I.e you cans still be in violation of the rules with an SUA (i.e no camera) if you fly below 50m near person or property as you violate the endangerment to person or property – air navigation order.

Yep. As I understand it from reading the regs, there is no hard 50m limit on camera-less drones, but they are obviously covered the general regulation to fly safely without endangering anyone or anything (Article 241).

I do probably sometimes fly my toy closer than 50m to others – though no closer than about 30.

But it is plastic, weighs 76 grams including battery, and you can easily stop the props with your bare fingers. 😀

Edit: you updated while I was typing 🙂

why fly it over a residential area when there’s a perfectly good park within easy walking distance?

Perhaps it was a neighbour (or friend of a neighbour) wanting a shot of their own house? Or it may not have even had a camera on it.

Isn’t there a difference between ‘recreational use’ and a ‘toy’?

Only to the linguistically lazy.

I know what you mean though – the £15 things the size the palm your hand you would give to a child to play with get branded as ‘toys’ with the Phantoms and above being something else (consumer drone?). I think that’s more to do with adult men with insecurity issues and a multiple grand hole in their bank accounts being a bit sensitive about the word. It’s ok to be a big kid with big toys – just be realistic about what they are.

Just because something is a toy does not mean it does not have to be used responsibly and misuse does not have consequence.

the Phantoms and above being something else.

What’s that exactly?

By above do you mean weight or money?

So by your Noam Chomsky skills of defining things – all drones ‘above’ a P4 (whatever above means) are not toys they are something else?

I know people who own dji mavics which may be considered ‘below’ Phantoms – that earn money. Is it still a toy?

What’s that exactly?

By above do you mean weight or money?

So by your Noam Chomsky skills of defining things – all drones ‘above’ a P4 (whatever above means) are not toys they are something else?

I know people who own dji mavics which may be considered ‘below’ Phantoms – that earn money. Is it still a toy?

Oh Jesus, you still going?

In the world according to convert (it’s a scary place) there are two sorts of drones (I’ve really not given this a lot of thought , but I’ve started now so I’ll have to see it through) – commercial drones and toys. I do not GAF about size/weight/cost/speed/image quality in that definition – it’s just one is being used for commercial gain and the other is being used by a bored geek to dick about.

The CAA (and you) will probably make it far more complicated, but there it is. My point is that ‘it’s not a toy’ is a stupid thing to say. In the hands of bored geek dicking about it is a toy by the dictionary definition of the word. But bored geeks still have to be responsible with their toys – them being called toys does not detract from that.

Drone however – that is a stupid term – why are we using that? And on opening that can of worms, I’ll sign off 😉

Drone however – that is a stupid term

I like “drone”.

It may not be an accurate description of the operation, but it does describe the noise very well 🙂

bored geek to dick about

Thanks.

I don’t care if you call my drone a toy, because I fly it responsibly.
However, five minutes on-you tube will show you that many people think that, because it’s just a toy, they can do what they want, like in the OP. Make it clear that these ‘toys’ can do serious harm and these people may start flying them with a bit more care.

Aren’t they called drones because they have a high degree of autonomy and can be left flying in the same spot “hands off”, but traditional rc planes or helicopters (without some fancy tech in them) usually required someone at the controls at all times constantly flying it.

Aren’t they called drones because they have a high degree of autonomy

Yes, but that only describes a sub-set of them. Many quads don’t fly like that and require constant control.

Just to resurrect this thread, after having reread the drone code (because I’ve just bought a little drone to film with- in the middle of nowhere I hasten to add) I might have previously got the wrong end of the stick regarding the flying within 50m of people and property with a camera equipped drone regulation. It appears having read it again and looked at the diagrams (http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dronecode.pdf) that is 50m in any direction. So (if I’m reading this correctly) a recreational drone with a camera could be legitimately flown over your house as long as there was 50m between the top of the roof and the drone. That’s in a not built up area with no crowds or events – no clear idea of what constitutes a built up area mind.

I have to say I’m quite surprised about that. No plans to ever fly mine over other people’s houses but it appears it is a legitimate thing to do.

Most people live in a built up area – pretty much the only place you’re allowed to overfly houses is isolated houses in the countryside.

It’s described a congested area. So you have to use your discretion.

“In the Air Navigation Order, a congested area is referred to as ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.’ This could cover housing estates, retail parks, theme parks, shopping centres, city centres and even public parks.”

Which begs the question why would anyone fly a drone over a Farm or put it another way a security segmented zone (youth offenders institute, army barracks, animal testing facility) since quite a few of those are “in the countryside…

ie unless you’re surrounded by open land, don’t!

I’m betting that at least 90% of drone flying is breaking the rules, if not the law.

Exactly, without being asked to (“I can’t find my tractor” / “would you mind awfully telling us if the inmates have made a hole in the roof”) there’s few legitimate reasons for doing so.

ie unless you’re surrounded by open land, don’t!

The helicopter/aircraft chaps figured that one out decades ago, sort of about the time RC became viable, it wasn’t a hard bit of thinking.

or put it another way a security segmented zone (youth offenders institute, army barracks, animal testing facility) since quite a few of those are “in the countryside…

Quite a few of these places are ringed in the software of modern drones to prevent overflying. I’m sure there are work arounds to it but out of the box my little drone would not allow itself to be flown over the local prison or army barracks.

I’m betting that at least 90% of drone flying is breaking the rules, if not the law.

I suspect you are right looking at much of the footage found on You tube. Interesting definition from Rone….’which is substantially used for….commercial purposes’ I guess farmland is commercial but I would not immediately have classified it as ‘congested’ necessarily and not sure that’s what is intended. Lots of other (4 legged) reasons why you would not fly over a currently occupied farm field clearly.

But there are individuals that “sell a service” to farmers for checking sheep and cattle locations, fences and gates etc. that fly over other farmers land.
We use a guy locally that does a monthly flyby but to get to one large field (which borders a very large military base) and he can fly right up to the fence that borders the facility (ok, the facility has a 200mtr no go zone) but the camera can see that far.. Also he flies the drone over another land owners field to get to another one of ours, he’s never asked permission because we’ve asked him.

Whilst I’m against drones in built up areas, communal social gathering areas (beaches, football pitches etc) I do see the positives for drones but there is so much unknown about the rules.

I don’t think the intention is to include farmland in that definition, and it’s certainly not included in the list of examples. The intention appears to be to include pretty much anything inside a settlement boundary.

Depends on the farmland – I’ve flown (RC planes, not drones) over farmland, but farmland with crops in. I’d certainly avoid overflying animals though.

Which is perfectly legal provided he complies with other rules.

I’ve flown (RC planes, not drones) over farmland, but farmland with crops in.

With or without landowners permission? IIRC its the same “as long as you’ve over 50m in height you’re legit with no permission needed” deal.