Saw this article on yahoo.com
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/12-drone-disasters-show-why-120000763.html
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/12-drone-disasters-show-why-120000763.html
12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones
- Thread starter KYnewbie
- Start date
Well if they can only find 12 out of all the hundreds of thousands of flights over the last couple of years that's pretty good.
Now where is that dictionary of mine. I need to check what the word disaster means - it seems to have changed whilst I wasn't looking
Now where is that dictionary of mine. I need to check what the word disaster means - it seems to have changed whilst I wasn't looking
According to Webster:
disaster - (noun) a successful flight by a drone over a crowded sporting event.
disaster - (noun) a successful flight by a drone over a crowded sporting event.
Sensationalism at its best. The media loves to milk every incident involving a drone for all it is worth. Sightings become near misses and uneventful flights become disasters. I have lost all respect for journalism.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
IrishSights said:
+1 on that.
If that's your mindset then it does not indicate an informed opinion.
You may be interested in my letter to the author:
Reply to Conner Forest, TechRepublic
Regarding: "12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones"
You have a remarkably low threshold of "disaster".
Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to the National Airspace System. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time using these small aircraft in the US and possibly more than a million hours worldwide, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury- See CFR 49-820.2). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 100,000 hours in the General Aviation fleet would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?
I am not saying that a serious accident can't or won't happen. It probably will in the future, but the fear of personal drones is hugely overstated.
By the way, if you need something really to be terrified from, don't ever go to a golf course. (http://golf.heraldtribune.com/2010/11/2 ... -uncommon/)
Considering your profound low threshold for "disaster", how do you ever leave your home to go to work?
Reply to Conner Forest, TechRepublic
Regarding: "12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones"
You have a remarkably low threshold of "disaster".
Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to the National Airspace System. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time using these small aircraft in the US and possibly more than a million hours worldwide, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury- See CFR 49-820.2). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 100,000 hours in the General Aviation fleet would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?
I am not saying that a serious accident can't or won't happen. It probably will in the future, but the fear of personal drones is hugely overstated.
By the way, if you need something really to be terrified from, don't ever go to a golf course. (http://golf.heraldtribune.com/2010/11/2 ... -uncommon/)
Considering your profound low threshold for "disaster", how do you ever leave your home to go to work?
IrishSights said:
The FAA doesn't hate drones. They just hate Phantoms.
I'm being facetious, of course. There's too much hyperbole and paranoia on both sides of the discussion.
fastsmiles said:
I don't believe drones are hated by the media, either. The media loves to milk ANY incident for all it's worth, drone-related or otherwise. Sensationalism sells newspapers and defines clickbait.
Drones will be highly utilized for news-gathering. The media, like ourselves, has an interest in drone usage.
I'm watching the Arnold Palmer Invitational and they have mentioned drones 4 or 5 times so far, and even did a demo for Arnold, who is a big fan of drones! Said he has a few small ones in his office he plays with. They are using the drones to video the tournament, obviously...but all very positive stuff!
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
Here's our cut and paste journalist http://connerforrest.com/about/
Apart from the disasters and the FAA hating drones bit, he got the title almost right.
What he meant to say was .. 12 minor drone incidents that will be cut and pasted by hack journalists trying to pad an alarmist piece about drones.
Apart from the disasters and the FAA hating drones bit, he got the title almost right.
What he meant to say was .. 12 minor drone incidents that will be cut and pasted by hack journalists trying to pad an alarmist piece about drones.
From item 6 in the article, where a drone was reportedly above a news helicopter at around 1500 ft, and where a spokesman said a collision could have caused a catastrophe:Hughie said:Well if they can only find 12 out of all the hundreds of thousands of flights over the last couple of years that's pretty good.
Now where is that dictionary of mine. I need to check what the word disaster means - it seems to have changed whilst I wasn't looking
Narrator said:From item 6 in the article, where a drone was reportedly above a news helicopter at around 1500 ft, and where a spokesman said a collision could have caused a catastrophe:Hughie said:Well if they can only find 12 out of all the hundreds of thousands of flights over the last couple of years that's pretty good.
Now where is that dictionary of mine. I need to check what the word disaster means - it seems to have changed whilst I wasn't looking
I agree it is not a good situation. But this was overt sensationalism. In my book a close call is not a disaster. It is only a disaster if something terrible actually happened. Sentences which use the words "could have" are not disasters.
The real shame of this piece was that the author had a good chance to publish a balanced factual report, which would have probably said that whilst we have a way to go in giving confidence in drone safety, statistically their safety record is superb. He chose not to and blew his professional integrity with that small minded decision.
I saw on the DrudgeReport today a contraband-carrying drone didn't get past some nets at a prison in Britain. I would categorize this event as a major disaster of catastrophic proportions. Oh, the humanity!
Incidents like this are going to ruin it for the prison drone smuggling community.
There's a thread on the topic: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36865
Incidents like this are going to ruin it for the prison drone smuggling community.
There's a thread on the topic: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36865
Similar threads
- Sticky
