Anyone concerned about drones in the future?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't think there are a lot of commercial/RC drones flying near Bagram but that wing sure struck something solid. Dang ...

[Hoser]

Wow Hoser, was that from some sort of commercial/RC drone strike?

Army RQ-7 UAV.

[TheGrey]

I wonder how long it will take for the companies to come out with an RC "drone hunter"?

Either that, or an uptick in falconry...

[Brian]

I don't think there are a lot of commercial/RC drones flying near Bagram but that wing sure struck something solid. Dang ...

Yeah that was why I was asking. But the UAVs over there are a lot bigger. Still, I'd assume even a little DJI Phantom could probably damage a wing or jet pretty well, given all the work that goes into avoiding birds.

[Brian]

Army RQ-7 UAV.

Ouch. Would hate to be that pilot (do you call the drone operator a pilot...?). I'm sure he caught it pretty bad.

[Great-Kazoo]

How can one be concerned about "drones" when you use a cell phone ?

[Dave_L]

How can one be concerned about "drones" when you use a cell phone ?

Yup. We get so concerned about cameras and yet people willingly like all sorts of pages on Facebook, post their locations (with pictures), input their diet on an app, track how many steps they take, etc. We give up so much information, they don't need drones.

[Irving]

Yup. We get so concerned about cameras and yet people willingly like all sorts of pages on Facebook, post their locations (with pictures), input their diet on an app, track how many steps they take, etc. We give up so much information, they don't need drones.

^^Liked, from the gym.

[Mazin]

Have you ever seen one live? I bought one a few months back, and they are definitely not fit for good, discrete surveillance yet. They are loud, batteries don't last very long, and most of them don't have cameras good enough to really "spy" on someone that well.

That being said, I met a lot of the guys involved and, unlike the firearms industry, they are strongly in support and pushing for more regulation, to make clear what is ok and what is not ok. Too many idiots are doing things like crashing into buildings in urban areas, flying into aircraft paths, etc. and that crap needs to stop. One of the proposals goes so far as to say you'd actually have to get some sort of drone "pilots" license from the FAA to be able to fly one.

It will be interesting to see how the technology evolves over the next 5 years. How many sci-fi shows have some sort of automated drone thing flying around? That stuff won't be science fiction for too much longer. They are improving very fast, and "piloting" one of the latest generation of drones is super easy compared to what it was like just a few years ago. Somebody developed a GPS-enabled drone not too long ago that will follow you around with a tracker - the idea is that it will keep filming you if you are skiing, surfing, biking, jeeping, whatever. Obviously this could have other unintended uses pretty easy.

On the federal and local levels using drones for surveillance I'm all about more regs. On the private side the idea of having to get a FAA license to fly RC aircraft I think is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of. I have been flying RC Aircraft Off and on since I was 6 years old and have been a member of numerous local and nation wide clubs and have never had any incident. I can see how the novice just going into the LHS buying a kit or even an ARF / RTF aircraft could get into trouble and may cause some property damage, like with firearms there are idiots that have no common sense and will do stupid things so why penalize the law abiding (sound familiar.).

For the amateur RC Hobbyist that has been flying RC a while knows that to fly and nitro or "wet" fuels you need to be at an AMA regulated field and be a member as well. The Academy of Model Aeronotics is not just a club it's also an insurance policy that will payout In case of injury or property damage. Now to fly electric technically as long as the city doesn't have an ordinance your gtg anywhere just have common sense and be safe. There are rules that apply like not breaking the 400' altitude because you will then be in no mans land with commercial aircraft but I doubt the legitimacy of anyone claiming they fly high enough to interfere with commercial aircraft. To control a RC Aircraft above 100' is a challenge but 400' yea right, unless they where flying next to a airport or heli pad I just don't see that happening.

The technology in this hobby has leaped over the years and you can have and fly a sudo drone (cockpit cam and /or gps) but even that's already regulated, you can't fly more than a mile in either direction and you must have a spotter. As far as flight times I think the longest I have ever flown was almost 30 minutes before my fuel ran out and I came in dead stick, with a lipo (battery) setup you might be able to duplicate that but doubtful (depending on the stats of the aircraft and power setup). So to just Go out and buy a drone for recon at you local hobby store .......I'm calling BS. There are very nice and expensive setups to do areal photography but nothing in comparison to what the .gov has.

Just my $.02

[jerrymrc]

On the private side the idea of having to get a FAA license to fly RC aircraft I think is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of.

We used to have to get a license to have a CB. KBLT-0413 was mine back in 76 or so.