UFO Sighting: Disney Drones

[MGMBoy]

Any idea what kind of general range you could get with a command link? Could someone have deployed from the balcony of a BLT room that faces the park? Would have given them a crystal clear LOS and privacy to control. If they could have a live feed from the drone's camera then they wouldn't necessarily even need a visual fix, just a good sense of the space around the drone based on the camera feed.

Also, did anyone else notice this sentence from the DL story? "Some speculated the drone was dispatched by Homeland Security, which sometimes parks a large bus at the resort, the employee said." Any ideas what the DHS could be hoping to achieve by doing that? Just wondering.

 

[Epcot-Rules]

Just a matter of time before Disney figures out away to make $$$ of of these drones. Get your drone photo pass. Fly a drone over MK for $5,000 per hour.

 

[sod4]

Any idea what kind of general range you could get with a command link? Could someone have deployed from the balcony of a BLT room that faces the park? Would have given them a crystal clear LOS and privacy to control. If they could have a live feed from the drone's camera then they wouldn't necessarily even need a visual fix, just a good sense of the space around the drone based on the camera feed.

Also, did anyone else notice this sentence from the DL story? "Some speculated the drone was dispatched by Homeland Security, which sometimes parks a large bus at the resort, the employee said." Any ideas what the DHS could be hoping to achieve by doing that? Just wondering.

With clear LOS and consumer available tech the possible link range is 10+ miles.

 

[CDavid]

Also, did anyone else notice this sentence from the DL story? "Some speculated the drone was dispatched by Homeland Security, which sometimes parks a large bus at the resort, the employee said." Any ideas what the DHS could be hoping to achieve by doing that? Just wondering.

The cynic is me is (half-seriously) wondering if maybe the DHS guys just have to take that bus (and maybe a drone) someplace to earn their keep. Would you rather hangout at a nuclear power plant or Disneyland?

With clear LOS and consumer available tech the possible link range is 10+ miles.

That's much farther than I would have thought. In fact, it means private individuals could potentially fly over the Disney parks from off-property launching positions.

 

[Voxel]

They are lost more frequent then that.. including populated areas.

The biggest quandary with the military application is... they are no longer little drones. The newer aircraft are basically the same size as normal planes/helos. So it's not as much the army of the small... but rather the 'army of the remote'.

I figure the next super power just needs to build their army based on terrestrial tech and knock out GPS.. and watch the modern US armed forces go inert.

First of I can't dive to deep into this topic because of my area of work. TS aspect is a killer, Knowing parts that you can't say. But this is well with in public information in something this. Such as it will take more then a lose of GPS to take out the moderns US forces, trust me on this one.

 

[Voxel]

The cynic is me is (half-seriously) wondering if maybe the DHS guys just have to take that bus (and maybe a drone) someplace to earn their keep. Would you rather hangout at a nuclear power plant or Disneyland?



That's much farther than I would have thought. In fact, it means private individuals could potentially fly over the Disney parks from off-property launching positions.

Once the FCC frees up more bandwidths you could be looking at 50 miles or more in range on consumer models. This FCC standing is the same thing holding back Amazons automated delivery.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Couple thoughts:

Disney nor OCSO would fly a remote controlled helicopter over guests heads. The liability is too great.

Also.... no one is dumb enough to fly a traditional rotor (See one of the above photos for reference) over anyone's head. That thing could kill someone easily.

However..... Guests/obsessive fans are dumb enough to try something like this. In the grand scheme of things, the DJIs are pretty inexpensive ($1200) and comes with a GoPro mount. Pretty easy to fly.

 

[Voxel]

Couple thoughts:

Disney nor OCSO would fly a remote controlled helicopter over guests heads. The liability is too great.

Also.... no one is dumb enough to fly a traditional rotor (See one of the above photos for reference) over anyone's head. That thing could kill someone easily.

However..... Guests/obsessive fans are dumb enough to try something like this. In the grand scheme of things, the DJIs are pretty inexpensive ($1200) and comes with a GoPro mount. Pretty easy to fly.

You under estimate the stupidity of people.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/toy-helicopter-kills-man-brooklyn-report/
This is just one incident. People will run he risk not realizing.

 

[MGMBoy]

Once the FCC frees up more bandwidths you could be looking at 50 miles or more in range on consumer models. This FCC standing is the same thing holding back Amazons automated delivery.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Even if we went with a really low range, five miles puts pretty much every single WDW resort in range. Find a secluded spot on the beach near Fort Wilderness and you may not have unobstructed LOS but you would be a fraction of a mile away. Personally, like cell phones on a commercial flight, I don't think drones (private, commercial OR government) have any place in our airspace without severe regulation and monitoring but that's my opinion. That being said, I could see allowing small ranges for their operation (kind of like a dog park but for drones) as well as possibly allowing non-fueled ones to fly in uninhabited areas or scenic national parks (Yosemite is the first one that comes to mind). As for allowing them over populated areas, just seems like a bad idea and a direct invasion of privacy. I'll be honest, I consider myself a pretty good shot and if I ever saw a quad-copter that I thought might be watching me, I can't guarantee that it wouldn't be getting up close and personal with a round from my 45-70.

 

[PhotoDave219]

You under estimate the stupidity of people.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/5/toy-helicopter-kills-man-brooklyn-report/
This is just one incident. People will run he risk not realizing.

Oh I most certainly do not underestimate them. These are the same folk who as "Where's the Castle" to a CM on Main Street.

 

[ford91exploder]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Even if we went with a really low range, five miles puts pretty much every single WDW resort in range. Find a secluded spot on the beach near Fort Wilderness and you may not have unobstructed LOS but you would be a fraction of a mile away. Personally, like cell phones on a commercial flight, I don't think drones (private, commercial OR government) have any place in our airspace without severe regulation and monitoring but that's my opinion. That being said, I could see allowing small ranges for their operation (kind of like a dog park but for drones) as well as possibly allowing non-fueled ones to fly in uninhabited areas or scenic national parks (Yosemite is the first one that comes to mind). As for allowing them over populated areas, just seems like a bad idea and a direct invasion of privacy. I'll be honest, I consider myself a pretty good shot and if I ever saw a quad-copter that I thought might be watching me, I can't guarantee that it wouldn't be getting up close and personal with a round from my 45-70.

Like I said I use a small drone for inspection work, but it's in my visual range and its not flying over ANYONE's head.

As to unidentified drones showing up without permission, Well part of my land is an antenna test range and there are some very powerful licensed RF sources there and if something flies over and gets its electronics zapped well then FCC knows where all the transmitters are and if no one bothered to check ULS for transmitters it's not my problem.

As to the privately operated Quadcopters, I personally prefer the Barrett .50 for this type of work longer range flatter trajectory more kinetic energy on target, If it's good enough for the USMC it's good enough for me. Close range Mossberg 500 full choke works perfectly.

The 'NO Trespassing - This means YOU' signs are for both ground and air.

 

[MGMBoy]

Like I said I use a small drone for inspection work, but it's in my visual range and its not flying over ANYONE's head.

As to unidentified drones showing up without permission, Well part of my land is an antenna test range and there are some very powerful licensed RF sources there and if something flies over and gets its electronics zapped well then FCC knows where all the transmitters are and if no one bothered to check ULS for transmitters it's not my problem.

As to the privately operated Quadcopters, I personally prefer the Barrett .50 for this type of work longer range flatter trajectory more kinetic energy on target, If it's good enough for the USMC it's good enough for me. Close range Mossberg 500 full choke works perfectly.

The 'NO Trespassing - This means YOU' signs are for both ground and air.

Hahaha! Love it! I'm actually hoping to get a .50 sometime. We inherited the 45-70 (breach loader) from my late father-in-law. Would prefer something with a flatter trajectory but there's something to be said for the concussive report of a black powder charge. Thing sounds like a small cannon.

 

[ford91exploder]

Hahaha! Love it! I'm actually hoping to get a .50 sometime. We inherited the 45-70 (breach loader) from my late father-in-law. Would prefer something with a flatter trajectory but there's something to be said for the concussive report of a black powder charge. Thing sounds like a small cannon.

There is nothing like Muzzle loading season up here when all the antique guns come out and you hear the BOOM of the discharge.

Nothing like a modern rifle and loading a musket is a interesting exercise take the powder horn and dump powder down barrel, tamp a patch - ball - patch down the barrel with the rod. and either set a cap or pour some powder where the flint can strike it. Aim and Fire you get a huge gout of fire and smoke out the barrel and a huge satisfying BOOM.

 

[Cesar R M]

what a load of barnacles!

 

[SJFPKT]

First of I can't dive to deep into this topic because of my area of work. TS aspect is a killer, Knowing parts that you can't say. But this is well with in public information in something this. Such as it will take more then a lose of GPS to take out the moderns US forces, trust me on this one.

My BIL was an Army drone pilot. Actually he.. well nevermind, lets just say he is associated with the drone program still. I think Israel has a drone the size of a DC-10. I read about it somewhere, that thing was HUGE.

 

[Voxel]

My BIL was an Army drone pilot. Actually he.. well nevermind, lets just say he is associated with the drone program still. I think Israel has a drone the size of a DC-10. I read about it somewhere, that thing was HUGE.

There is a model being tested know with the wingspan of a 747. They are getting massive.

 

[R W B]

And fall on people when they lose power or a command link, I use a camera drone to inspect antennas on towers - saves the cost of a climber (expensive) but I make D--- sure no one else is around and I'm out of its fall trajectory IF something happens.

I'ts only a matter of time before a surveilance drone falls out of the sky into a crowd and kills a few people. And then we will have the public debate we should have had in the first place before placing these into general service.

Drones have military utility and they also have utility in remote inspection and inspecting hazardous locations like train derailments involving HazMat because they can go where humans cannot safely go.

But there are also RISKS involved if the command link is severed or you have a motor failure and the long endurance ones also have fuel onboard along with blade tip velocities just under the speed of sound.

So you can have a 20-50 pound buzzsaw falling from the sky along with a gallon or so of avgas. It's not going to be pretty when it hits the ground especially if people are around.

The one I use is a gas powered RC helicopter with a video link it weighs about 10 pounds total and has a pint of nitromethane fuel onboard once again if it goes out of control you do not want to be where it hits even though its only a couple hundred feet up max.

I understand what your saying about the risk but its not any more risky then walking out of your house and going for a drive. At any minute you could be driving at 70mph and have a tire blow out or someone around can and the end result can be fatal. I mean a 10yr old gas line or electric wire in your house can fail and start a fire at any time. My point is, in normal everyday life we as humans take risk just by waking up. Just add the drone to the list. No big deal IMO.

 

[omurice]

... in normal everyday life we as humens take risk just by waking up...

Silly "humens" always taking risks... and free refills.

 

[R W B]

Silly "humens" always taking risks... and free refills.

Yes, one of the biggest risk I take everyday is typing on my phone and expecting everything to be spelled correctly! Lol

 

[PhotoDave219]

I understand what your saying about the risk but its not any more risky then walking out of your house and going for a drive. At any minute you could be driving at 70mph and have a tire blow out or someone around can and the end result can be fatal. I mean a 10yr old gas line or electric wire in your house can fail and start a fire at any time. My point is, in normal everyday life we as humans take risk just by waking up. Just add the drone to the list. No big deal IMO.

Okay, let's put it this way:

You're walking down MSUSA and out of nowhere, a remote controlled helicopters comes crashing down on your loved one. You are likely to sue the bloody hell out of Disney and the helicopter operator... Because no one in their right mind expects a remote control helicopter to fall on them on vacation.

So it's not a chance of risk - we all know driving is statistically dangerous - but rather it's a question of liability.