Flight of the year

[Deskpilot]

Awesome control, enjoy.

 

Master R/C Pilot Flies His Drone Underneath A Moving Train

 

 

[rgmwa]

Impressive, although I wonder how many drones didn't survive the practice sessions. I also doubt that the railway company that owns the train would be very impressed.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[onetrack]

The reaction of the engine driver, in slamming his drivers window shut, says it all. This irresponsible drone-owning idiot is showing us all the reasons for more intensive drone ownership and use, controls.

 

What happens if he distracted the engine driver from seeing a red signal? This clown is trespassing on railway property.

 

In the U.S., I understand property rights extends to at least 83 feet above the property (proven in law via a successful lawsuit), and theoretically, to 500 feet.

 

I fully expected the engine driver to whip out a shotgun and blast the drone out of existence. I wonder how many drones this idiot has already lost to aggrieved, armed property owners?

 

With the recent footage showing IS blowing up a Syrian Army ammunition and explosives dump, and the Russians using a drone to blow a Ukrainian explosives dump, the security angle of drones as regards terrorism offences is going to become a dominating feature of high-level discussion and regulation, very shortly. One mustn't forget that the Norks are also watching all this very carefully, and formulating their next round of evil and repulsive moves.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, Onetrack, I put the video up to show the pilots skill, and that magnificent scenery. Drones will, unfortunately, get into the hands of the wrong people (and governments) from time to time, but they are a part of our would now and we have to used to living with them, however annoying and intrusive they might become.

 

 

[facthunter]

I personally think you be able to euthenase them if they come snooping around your private space. There has to be some quality of life for the ordinary folk. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Deskpilot, I agree on the stunningly magnificent scenery, and the skill of the drone operator - but his skill level isn't matched by the necessary degree of intelligence and maturity to recognise the dangers of what he's doing with his drone.

 

Train operation involves multiple inherent dangers, and driver skills and stress, the same as all large transport equipment operations. The last thing you need as an engine driver is some clown with a drone distracting you.

 

There's plenty of reasons why our drone laws and regulations are already reasonably strict, and AFAIC, the authorities need to start requiring licences to own and use one, to weed out the clowns, the immature, and the drone hoons.

 

I wonder what this drone operator will try next? A similar flight around an A380, just as it takes off??

 

 

[Birdseye]

My god, it could have flown through the cab window and decapitated the driver. Hang him!

 

(P.S. I actually do think the guy is a dickhead and shouldn't be doing that sort of thing without explicit permission, assuming he wasn't of course)

 

 

[onetrack]

Well, it seems like Union Pacific, at least, have formulated a UAV (UAS in the States) policy - and it's short and pretty clear, and it reinforces my attitude towards reckless behaviour with drones around trains and railroad infrastructure.

 

Union Pacific Policy for Photography and Video Recording

 

 

[SDQDI]

Well, it seems like Union Pacific, at least, have formulated a UAV (UAS in the States) policy - and it's short and pretty clear, and it reinforces my attitude towards reckless behaviour with drones around trains and railroad infrastructure.Union Pacific Policy for Photography and Video Recording

unfortunately having a company 'policy' saying it is illegal to fly over company land is nearly laughable, for sure all their other points are valid but that one does diddly squat.

I would love to see the ruling about the 80 odd feet mark and what it was in regards to? Did it have anything to do with drones? I didn't think anything could be done about drones flying over property (for sure they can be done for trespassing if they take off from said property but otherwise I thought it was hazy).

 

It is an area where I think rules need to be set to protect people from privacy incursions. Flying a plane over somewhere with a go pro dangling is one thing but hovering at 10-20 feet with a drone can be pretty intimidating and a huge violation of privacy.

 

I fly a drone but I think it should be ok to shoot them down if safe to do so.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

refer post #4. Over and out.

 

 

[onetrack]

I would love to see the ruling about the 80 odd feet mark and what it was in regards to? Did it have anything to do with drones?

The often-referred to ruling is the 1946 U.S. Court case, "United States v. Causby - 328 U.S. 256 (1946)".

 

United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

 

This case was initiated by chicken farmers who lived under a flight path to an airport. The aircraft flying to and from that airport usually cleared the chicken farmers property at a calculated 83 feet, using the U.S. standard glide path angle of 30 to 1.

 

Commencing June 1, 1942, the U.S. Govt leased the airport for the use of military aircraft, and the volume and size of the aircraft using the airport obviously increased substantially.

 

The aggrieved chicken farm owners argued they owned all the airspace through to the limits of the universe, and the U.S. Govt had taken an illegal easement over their property, and had deprived the chicken farmer of their natural rights, and also caused them financial losses, as well as detriment to the quality of their lifestyle and sleep.

 

Initially the case was totally rejected, so the chicken farmers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won compensation.

 

The 83 feet ruling is not a definitive ruling, it is merely taken as a guide. No specific height allowance was set.

 

The Supreme Court deemed that landowners obviously own the airspace over their land to a reasonable height, otherwise structures would not be able to be erected.

 

This fact becomes immediately obvious when you consider the height of the many multi-storey buildings erected around the world - and even just radio and antenna masts.

 

I don't see whether there should be a distinction between drones and any other aircraft. They are all aerial vehicles, and the laws and regulations of airspace apply to them.

 

Under the decision section of the Causby case, entitled "Held", section (d) is a definitive statement.

 

This section deems that low and frequent flights over a landowners property that are, "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land", effectively constitute trespass, exactly the same as entering the land by "conventional" means.

 

The above case wasn't about setting strict limits for the height of the landowners airspace - it was about compensation for stock losses, and compensation for intrusion into the landowners lives, to their detriment.

 

However, the case is one of the few definitive U.S. Supreme Court rulings as to how users of the airspace above properties do have responsibilities to not interfere with the comfort of the lives, and not to cause detriment to any operations, by the owners of the properties.

 

 

[riverduk]

I'm not going to get into the debate about drone and their pilots, I have one that I built myself as a bit of a learning curve, wasn't sure why at the time but now I know. How would RAA or CASA register this baby and what licence would you require?

 

 

I'm in love and yes! I'd fly that! ...............Now, where's the credit card?

 

 

[onetrack]

I wonder how you go, as a Dubai copper, trying to apprehend felons, and having to land in some of that powdery, dusty, Saudi desert sand? I reckon their kit must have to include dust-breathing masks!

 

 

[facthunter]

And a full IFR panel with air filtered cockpit. I think it's shopped anyhow. Nev

 

 

[riverduk]

I think it's shopped anyhow

Not so sure about the shopped bit, if it is, its a damn good job, here's another video:

 

 

And I'm still looking for the credit card!

 

 

[facthunter]

There's easier ways to suicide. Nev