Now, when we are sitting around the campfire this summer and I show the friends that I only see in the summer what I got in the winter and anyone says "oh you got a drone", that's a whole different story.
I don't agree with equating "drone" to the N word. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
In bold: excellent close to a good post. Where we agree is that operators, not the name, are what make drones look bad or good.
I understand what you mean and I agree. It's a pretty aggressive comparison; I was making reference to the previous post.
It's really no different than calling someone a "******" or "idiot"... these were all acceptable terms when they were coined, but were misused to the point of being derogatory. What sets them apart though is that they are "personified" rather than objectified.
Thank you, and yes we do agree on that.
Wow... see what I mean? Even as mild as it is, that word is unacceptable to the filters. It's the word that is a lot like retread, used in the psychological field. It also means "delay" or "behind" in French.
Last edited:
Solution: 2 pictures, on the left a fully armed Predator, sporting every missile known to man; on the right any model Phantom. Under the Predator the caption : "Deadly Rigidwing Overkill Nuke-capable Erradicator, or DRONE". Under the Phantom: "A model rotorcraft used for filming family reunions, beautiful nature shots, Mom and apple pie, sometimes mistakenly called a DRONE." This public service ad sponsored by AMRA, the American Model Rotorcraft Association, sponsoring responsible pilots nationwide. We all chip in to the Association, which circulates the ad everywhere they can. We're halfway home because we speak responsibly, condoning none of the irresponsible actions of outlaw pilots, and we legitimize our sport as being characterized by down to earth, levelheaded pilots. We're even regulated by a federal agency. No thanks, local government, we don't need more laws, we got the carrot and the FAA's got the stick.
I disagree with this on two levels.
1. Definition of drone - You suggest an ad campaign to convince the public the Predator is a drone and the Phantom is not a drone. You don't get to define a word. The word is out and it's not going back in the box, not for hobbyists and not for the military. (By the way, the USAF doesn't call the Predator a drone either. The original military drones were unarmed, like our Phantoms.)
2. Hypothetically, lets say such an ad campaign was successful and the public now knows Phantoms, Mavics, Karmas, Inspires, etc. as quadcopters. Utopia? Every time someone did something stupid, the press would report a quadcopter hit a baby, a quadcopter flew through a NY window, a quadcopter took down an Airbus, etc. What's the difference?
The problem isn't what we call drones, it's the stupid things people do with them.
Sadly, I wish I could say that a distinction would make a difference, but it won't. It's just unfortunate that we are already perceived as engaging in a hobby that has a negative connotation before it even becomes as popular as it's starting to.
And for the record, I know you're not wrong because I spent six months at Kandahar Air Field, and one of the highlights was a tour of the "UAV hangar."
Call me an optimist, because I don't believe there's a negative connotation to this hobby. There is a negative connotation to news reporting as a whole, but I don't buy any conspiracy theories that the media is "out to get us" as much as it's trying to get you to click on the headline.
The overwhelming majority of people who I come across when I'm flying my drone are interested and positive. They love looking at the FPV feed. Not one person has mistaken my Phantom for a deadly Hellfire-launching MQ1 Predator. We should give the public credit for knowing the difference between a hobby drone and a weapons platform. After all, they can discern between an F15 and a 787.
When you were in Kandahar, would you have been redirected for saying "drone?"
The overwhelming majority of people who I come across when I'm flying my drone are interested and positive. They love looking at the FPV feed. Not one person has mistaken my Phantom for a deadly Hellfire-launching MQ1 Predator. We should give the public credit for knowing the difference between a hobby drone and a weapons platform. After all, they can discern between an F15 and a 787.
When you were in Kandahar, would you have been redirected for saying "drone?"
LMAO They were live... the real thing. I just called them "sir".
No word of a lie, you are corrected quickly in that environment, coupled with the fact that the military never uses any full words for anything... acronyms and abbreviations only!
Actually you raise an interesting point... for the most part, I haven't found the "man on the street" to have negative feelings toward them, if anything they lean a little more toward calling them "spy machines", but I really think it depends what you put out there. You can tell by looking st someone if they are approachable or not... or if they are wearing a shirt that says leave me alone I'm piloting.
It's the press that's worn me down and with far more than just their sensationalistic reporting of these things... it's EVERYTHING... cue Jeff Rossen.
I'm HERE talking about it because it's interesting and thought provoking conversation with intelligent people sharing a common interest. If I was really that impassioned about it I'd find the appropriate venue to forward my concerns.
I was a Marine stationed at Lackland AFB for a few months and got to see how different their basic training was from ours, as well as other aspects of Air Force life.
My conclusion: the US Air Force is a lot like the military.
I was a civilian, operating our personnel support programs, so when not actually performing my role, I just listened and absorbed and enjoyed the fascination of it all.
Interestingly enough, in the vein of this convo, "our" UAV's were named after birds and were unarmed, as opposed to the "Predator" and "Reaper"!
Clipper, the 2 picture ad campaign was really meant tongue in cheek, while the idea of a national association of responsible pilots of whatever we call the aircraft was deadly serious. I agree we can't dictate the term for our hobby/profession, but we surely can approach the public with friendly and responsible contacts.
Also, I like your point that it isn't the public that's out to get drones, in all forms. It's probably a healthier attitude to approach people with. I just wish there was a way to counter the sensationalistic press.
Funny, 30 days is too much for recklessly injuring an innocent bystander while there are people in prison for life for possessing a marijuana cigarette. Actually it's not really funny if you think about it.
If a stuntman rode a bike on a tightwire above an unprotected group of people, and he lost control causing someone to be injured, I don't doubt he may have received a similar sentence.
For those that say he was used to make an example of, well, yeah. Isn't that kinda why we have criminal justice in the first place? So that it will act as a deterrent for others.
If a stuntman rode a bike on a tightwire above an unprotected group of people, and he lost control causing someone to be injured, I don't doubt he may have received a similar sentence.
For those that say he was used to make an example of, well, yeah. Isn't that kinda why we have criminal justice in the first place? So that it will act as a deterrent for others.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 52
- Age
- 50
Geez...if someone's post is too long then skip it. Cliff Notes version? Yeah, hilarious. The number of posts on here with misspelled words and poor grammar are countless...do they get edited or commented on like that? Maybe posts that are too short should be singled out? Why waste anyone's time with a post simply complaining about the length of it?
My last point on this topic...look at the stupid "drone" laws up in Canada. Give it time...apathy will lead to similar overreaching at every level of government. It won't take very many stories like the Seattle one to almost completely turn the general public against anyone using these except law enforcement, government and licensed film crews. It very well could happen. I'm just waiting for someone - anyone to actually kill someone with their UAV. We are indeed kidding ourselves if we think that won't or can't happen, but when you have FPV racers hurling these things around at triple digit speeds...they won't always just crash into the dirt or cement. Too many stupid people out there and some of them post their cockiness on YouTube.
Personally, I am so thankful we have the 2nd Amendment to our constitution because if it weren't for that we too would be foolishly following other countries who have taken away their people's right to not only defend their lives and their property, but their freedom as they know it. I'll gladly go out on a limb here and say that if multirotors were the new rage during the late 1700's the founding flying fathers would have included an amendment to the US constitution that reads something like this:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the use of unmanned aerial vehicles beyond the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration's safety regulations to ensure as safe a national airspace as possible, while also not inhibiting the safe trespass of any who peacefully and responsibly use such aircraft, at will. For those who don't...refer to the 2nd amendment.
***the last part is tongue in cheek humor...not advocating shooting bad drone pilots. (Cliff Notes)
My last point on this topic...look at the stupid "drone" laws up in Canada. Give it time...apathy will lead to similar overreaching at every level of government. It won't take very many stories like the Seattle one to almost completely turn the general public against anyone using these except law enforcement, government and licensed film crews. It very well could happen. I'm just waiting for someone - anyone to actually kill someone with their UAV. We are indeed kidding ourselves if we think that won't or can't happen, but when you have FPV racers hurling these things around at triple digit speeds...they won't always just crash into the dirt or cement. Too many stupid people out there and some of them post their cockiness on YouTube.
Personally, I am so thankful we have the 2nd Amendment to our constitution because if it weren't for that we too would be foolishly following other countries who have taken away their people's right to not only defend their lives and their property, but their freedom as they know it. I'll gladly go out on a limb here and say that if multirotors were the new rage during the late 1700's the founding flying fathers would have included an amendment to the US constitution that reads something like this:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the use of unmanned aerial vehicles beyond the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration's safety regulations to ensure as safe a national airspace as possible, while also not inhibiting the safe trespass of any who peacefully and responsibly use such aircraft, at will. For those who don't...refer to the 2nd amendment.
***the last part is tongue in cheek humor...not advocating shooting bad drone pilots. (Cliff Notes)
Similar threads
- Sticky
