tree68 BLS53 A large fowl in the wild holds a better chance of damaging a freight train than that glorified plastic toy. A deer gave us electrical problems for a while on one locomotive... (It went under the pilot and hit a traction motor.) I agree that physically, a UAV is no match for a train. I think the distraction factor is a bigger risk. And I believe what galls folks more than anything is that this UAV operator seemed to think that he was completely within his rights. In some ways, he's right. UP and FAA rules notwithstanding, until he flew around the lead locomotive, he was more in danger of losing his UAV than causing any issues with the train, or the surrounding countryside. How many pictures have we seen of railfans climbing signal towers, etc? Doesn't mean it's right, only that such behavior predates UAV's by several human generations...
BLS53 A large fowl in the wild holds a better chance of damaging a freight train than that glorified plastic toy.
A deer gave us electrical problems for a while on one locomotive... (It went under the pilot and hit a traction motor.)
I agree that physically, a UAV is no match for a train.
I think the distraction factor is a bigger risk.
And I believe what galls folks more than anything is that this UAV operator seemed to think that he was completely within his rights.
In some ways, he's right. UP and FAA rules notwithstanding, until he flew around the lead locomotive, he was more in danger of losing his UAV than causing any issues with the train, or the surrounding countryside.
How many pictures have we seen of railfans climbing signal towers, etc? Doesn't mean it's right, only that such behavior predates UAV's by several human generations...
It's like anything else in society, when it becomes a big enough problem, lawmakers will react. Look how quick the prohibition of using cell phones while driving laws escalated.
For whatever reason, railfans seem to be more concerned about petty crime issues affecting railroads, than the railroads themselves do.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 BigJim And that, could be anybody with a drone! Oh, for sure. It's already happened (young man flew his drone over two sunbathing teens - father took exception). The problem is the attitude that "I can do it and get away with it, so it's fine." UAVs have already caused problems at several wildfires when they interfered with aerial firefighting operations. But I'm sure the UAV operators "got their shot." There are devices available that will "shoot down" a UAV by interfering with the flight controls. And a 12 Guage will serve the same purpose (altho with a rather poor outcome for the UAV).
BigJim And that, could be anybody with a drone!
Oh, for sure. It's already happened (young man flew his drone over two sunbathing teens - father took exception).
The problem is the attitude that "I can do it and get away with it, so it's fine."
UAVs have already caused problems at several wildfires when they interfered with aerial firefighting operations. But I'm sure the UAV operators "got their shot."
There are devices available that will "shoot down" a UAV by interfering with the flight controls. And a 12 Guage will serve the same purpose (altho with a rather poor outcome for the UAV).
Johnny
BLS53 CMStPnP Now what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist? I think the FAA should bust the guy and fine him or have him do time. The FAA has bigger fish to fry. A large fowl in the wild holds a better chance of damaging a freight train than that glorified plastic toy. In most encounters, locomotives and rolling stock hold a distinct advantage over other moving objects. Cans of spray paint being the exception.
CMStPnP Now what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist? I think the FAA should bust the guy and fine him or have him do time.
Now what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist?
I think the FAA should bust the guy and fine him or have him do time.
The FAA has bigger fish to fry. A large fowl in the wild holds a better chance of damaging a freight train than that glorified plastic toy. In most encounters, locomotives and rolling stock hold a distinct advantage over other moving objects. Cans of spray paint being the exception.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
gregc If you crash a drone, you might land yourself in jail -- a careless pilot. A year in jail and $5000
If you crash a drone, you might land yourself in jail -- a careless pilot. A year in jail and $5000
No reason to believe otherwise. If you own and operate any sort of widget, and use it irresponsibly to injure or damage others, you've broken the law. Drones are just the new kid on the block.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregcIn a similar respect, jamming a signal or shooting down an object traveling at speed that can crash into a crowd is irresponsible.
I believe the devices that will disable a drone are targeted more at industry than individuals (ie, industrial espionage). If you're out there trying to get a picture of the new Rolls Kanardly, odds are there's no crowd involved.
Same thing if you're disrupting firefighting efforts on a wildfire.
There are places (NY state parks, for one) where a permit is required, regardless of your registrations and certifications.
OTOH, while the fire service is starting to see the advantages of using UAVs for scene survey and evaluation, there are videos on-line of firefighters trying to shoot them down with hose streams...
tree68 Murphy Siding In watching the clip, it's pretty obvious that the operator was not within the required line of sight requirements, nor is it hard to figure out who he is since he is advertising himself and his videos. If UP were to file a complaint with the FCC, could the operator expect a knock on the door from a government official? It would be the FAA. What is needed is for a few such cases to be made high-profile and be prosecuted. As long as UAV users can look at a video such as this and say "I can do that," the problem will continue. Bust a few of them, with substantial penalties, and it might stem the tide a bit. Nothing will truly happen until one of them causes a serious, loss-of-life incident.
Murphy Siding In watching the clip, it's pretty obvious that the operator was not within the required line of sight requirements, nor is it hard to figure out who he is since he is advertising himself and his videos. If UP were to file a complaint with the FCC, could the operator expect a knock on the door from a government official?
It would be the FAA.
What is needed is for a few such cases to be made high-profile and be prosecuted. As long as UAV users can look at a video such as this and say "I can do that," the problem will continue. Bust a few of them, with substantial penalties, and it might stem the tide a bit.
Nothing will truly happen until one of them causes a serious, loss-of-life incident.
Norm48327 Alex, If I may take exception there is a huge difference between 'pilot' and 'operator'. Given the FAA's defination drone operators are not pilots.
Alex,
If I may take exception there is a huge difference between 'pilot' and 'operator'. Given the FAA's defination drone operators are not pilots.
Fair enough, but obviously you know what I mean.
If you hit an airbrake coupling at a decent clip, you could probably dislodge them and cause an emergency application. Yes drones are fragile, but that's moreso the props than anything else. Sure they might break and become unflyable, but KE=.5m*v^2...in other words, a 5 lb drone going 30 mph is going to have the ability to impart some force on whatever it hits. And the batteries used are nice bricks of mass, to be sure.
While I doubt it'd ever be able to set a handbrake, I could see where a hit at the right angle and speed could potentially cause an undesired emergency application.
And anytime you're potentially causing an emergency application for your hobby, you're in the wrong.
tree68There are devices available that will "shoot down" a UAV by interfering with the flight controls. And a 12 Guage will serve the same purpose (altho with a rather poor outcome for the UAV).
when i got my drivers license my friend's father reminded me that it was a "license to kill". driving carelessly can kill someone
i hope all RC pilots realize that if they loose control, their aircraft can hurt people if it crashes into them. This is one reason the FAA wants RC to be flown away from crowds and remotely piloted vehicles flown near sports events to flown by pilots/operators with proper FAA ratings.
in a similar respect, jamming a signal or shooting down an object traveling at speed that can crash into a crowd is irresponsible.
Did anyone see the chopper that was struck by a drone this past week? The chopper looked like a military. I just caught the tail end of a news cast on the tv. I wonder if men in black suits paid a visit to the drone operator?
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Murphy SidingIn watching the clip, it's pretty obvious that the operator was not within the required line of sight requirements, nor is it hard to figure out who he is since he is advertising himself and his videos. If UP were to file a complaint with the FCC, could the operator expect a knock on the door from a government official?
BigJimAnd that, could be anybody with a drone!
I think the conductor did the best thing when he closed the window. The drone operator was obviously looking for some type of reaction and the conductor refused to play the game. In watching the clip, it's pretty obvious that the operator was not within the required line of sight requirements, nor is it hard to figure out who he is since he is advertising himself and his videos. If UP were to file a complaint with the FCC, could the operator expect a knock on the door from a government official?
.
tree68It's people like that who give other drone users a bad name. The first time he's flying that thing outside your teenage daughter's bedroom window... "Hey, it was all in good fun..."
yes, reckless not careless
gregcBut even unmanned vehicles are required to be flown within "Visual line-of-sight" amoung other limitations including "No careless or reckless operations".
If you watched the video to the end, you'll notice that the fellow flying the drone was using a virtual reality helmet. Given the video that was presented, he was clearly not flying the drone in "visual line of sight" a good portion of the time. He was relying on what he saw in that helmet.
Also at the end, you can see him and his friends celebrating the flight.
It's people like that who give other drone users a bad name.
The first time he's flying that thing outside your teenage daughter's bedroom window... "Hey, it was all in good fun..."
Electroliner 1935 CMStPnP Now what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist?
CMStPnP
Thanks Miningman, I was hoping for some hard-won common sense from north of the border.
Yeah, those guys you describe are PILOTS! I'd suspect a drone operator calling himself a pilot in their presense would have the facts of life explained to him right quick.
I'm 100% with Firelock.
We have a drone for our Engineering and Geology department's and the fellow that has the, now required, ticket to operate the drone, is called a pilot.
Anyone calling that pinhead a pilot is out of their mind. We have real pilots up here, bush pilots that land on the water all summer and on the ice with skis during the winter....plus the fellows piloting the water bombers...now those fellas are Pilots....not that half baked clown that OPERATES our drone.
Fair enough. They're the FAA, they make the rules, they can call the operator whatever they like.
I'm still calling them operators.
It is a lot like the person in the cab of a train and in charge of the operation of the engine... in America they are an "Engineer", but in other countries they are the "Driver"... the word "Engineer" is a hold over from when the person operating the engine was the person that designed the engine (and probably was in charge of the manufacture)... he was the "Engineer" (operator) because only he knew how. Later when someone else was placed in charge of the operation of the engine they took the same "title" (at least in America).
A "Pilot" is a person in charge of the direction a vehicle will travel... As a Verb, it means to control the direction of something. In a harbor, a ship will be placed in the control of a "Pilot" to get it from the harbor entrance to the berth (and vice versa), but he is not the "Captian" nor is he the person operating the controls!
I "Pilot" my car when I am the driver... you might also be the pilot of your car, unless your wife is telling you where to go (my wife threw me away after telling me where to go, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion).
I can see where the FAA had to make a tighter definition of "Pilot" and "Operator" and "Observer" to clarify the roles of each... but for common-man discussions, one should understand that the fellow on the ground with the R/C controls in his hand is the Pilot of the Unmanned Airborne Vehicle.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
CMStPnPNow what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist?
As a previous poster stated, I don't thik there is sufficient mass in a drone to break an air hose connection or handbrake. The drones I have seen are quite fragile and would shatter (or bounce off) when impacting anything on a train. The U.P. would have a case of tresspass for when the drone entered the boxcar, flew under the train, or when it flew through the bridge.
this summary of FAR part-107, says "establishes a new remote pilot in command position". The FAA requires passing a written and practical exam for a "remote pilot rating".
are you suggesting the FAA should have call it a "remote operator rating"?
Which is why I called users of drones or hobbyists with R/C airplanes "operators" and not "pilots."
I'm a traditionalist, if that aircraft ain't strapped to your backside you ain't a pilot.
No disrepect intended to the flyers of R/C airplanes. From what I've heard from those who've done both, sometimes flying it R/C versions is harder than flying the real thing.
Norm
As a drone pilot myself, I find this flight to be disrespectful of Union Pacific's property and operations, even if it isn't illegal.
As with anything in life, just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right. I think in this case the pilot crossed the line between right-to-fly and disrespecting Union Pacific's operations by potentially interfearing with the train's operations - at the very least pissing off the train crew.
The chance for somebody to purposefuly misuse these aircraft has nothing to do with this flight, however, if he for instance were to accidentially trigger an emergency application, if he crashed or flew into the air lines by mistake between cars, then this could cause huge issues. Surely though, most of the risk was to the guy's own craft, but he's a well-know drone racer who obviously has incredible skills - but this probably wasn't the best way to show them off.
Now as to Union Pacific's "drone policy", it's obvious that while they have the right to control who takes off or lands on their property - which is trespassing otherwise, their policy is not legal when it comes to "flying over" their land. Union Pacific, nor anybody else, owns the airspace above them. While I accept UP's right to their own property, they do not control the airspace above, and thus it is completely legal to fly over their land, so long as you follow the FAA and any local regulations, without UP's advance permission, as they seem to require in their policy statement.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.