4 ms·

Isn't drone a buzzword and this type of craft is just a radio controlled plane. This tech is ancient. I thought drone implies it's self guiding.

by adamio 12y ago

mod 12y ago
It is a buzzword, one that's very great at fear-mongering, and is getting RC planes grouped with UAVs that are killing people overseas. It's unfortunate. Assholes like the guy flying this drone aren't helping, either, for hobbyists that want to fly legally and responsibly, which as you note, has been going on for a very long time.
- balls187 12y ago
  The threat of a drone that can fire a missile at an airline seems to have the same net result as the threat of an RC plane that is flown illegally in restricted airspace dangerously close to an airline. I don't see it as fear mongering, given that both outcomes are bad, and I believe and the public should be aware that because RC tech is becoming cheaper and more popular, more idiots will get their hands on it.
  - ynniv 12y ago
    That you think a few pounds of low speed balsa wood and a high explosive guided missile are equally dangerous to an aircraft exemplifies the problem.
    - balls187 12y ago
      How about I throw a few pounds of low-speed balsa wood into your car windshield at 75 mph/120kmph and see what happens? Now imagine what happens if you can get a car up to airline speeds. Your ignorance of the dangers of high speed collisions exemplifies exactly why this is alarming. Also, I recommend familiarizing yourself with Airline and Foreign Object Damage before continuing further.
      - ynniv 12y ago
        It's fine that you are worried about high speed collisions. Bird strikes are a serious problem, especially for small craft, and there's no reason to allow the public to increase the frequency of them. However, you compared them directly to guided, high explosive ordinance that are intentionally, reliably fatal for any sized aircraft. This is not a valid comparison, and is the core problem with the term "drone". I have had a few pounds of wood hit my windshield at high speed, and while it really scared me it had no long term impact on me or my car. I would not fair so well against a Hellfire missile. Edit: Impact of 2lb at 75mph ~= 1 Kj. Detonation of a Hellfire missile (9kg of TNT equiv) is 37.66 Mj. That's a four orders of magnitude difference, not taking into account the suitability for inflicting damage.
      - baddox 12y ago
        > How about I throw a few pounds of low-speed balsa wood into your car windshield at 75 mph/120kmph and see what happens? I'll take that over a missile any day.
    - artmageddon 12y ago
      I would counter that your ignorance exemplifies the problem. We already have hordes of idiots who shine laser beams into the flight decks of moving airplanes, blinding the pilots and causing major issues for flight operations. Living, breathing birds, which only weigh a few pounds, can take down single-engine airplanes as well as large jets, much like the one that landed in the Hudson River just outside of NYC a few years ago. You can bet a plane such as the one you describe would have disastrous effects, too.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  People have been flying RC planes for a very long time, but in general they were an awful lot smaller and less capable than some of the offerings on the market now - even the serious hobbyist gas-engined planes usually had a windspan of only a few feet. But if you're a serious hobby you can get large jets for only a few thousand: http://www.skymasterjet.com/index1.htm http://www.skymasterjet.com/index1.htm RC Helicopters are even cheaper and the quadcopters are so easy to fly, and decent cameras so lightweight, that there are far more people using them than ever before. Suggesting that the current environment is the same as the historical one except for the popularity of the word 'drone' is simply inaccurate.
pseudometa 12y ago
The makers of such radio controlled deviced call them drones. It doesn't really pertain to 'self guiding' anymore.
- baddox 12y ago
  It never implied self-guiding. It was used to refer to remotely piloted target drones in World War II, and more recently to military UAVs that are remotely piloted by humans.
baddox 12y ago
"Drone" in this context just means "remote controlled aircraft." The term has been used that way since World War II. It doesn't imply autonomous flying, after all, even "Predator drones" are remotely piloted by humans.
rogerhoward 12y ago
I agree with other posters that the term is problematic, but most popular drone platforms do in fact have automated flight modes - everything from just stabilized fly-by-wire, to fully automated, GPS-plotted flight, to Return-to-Home when it gets out of range. I know people with multirotor craft that have 5-10km radio range; that should tell you something: at that range there's no way the drone is in sight range, though it is possible (and even common) to have FPV video, but that really doesn't give you the kind of vision needed to avoid all kinds of risks (especially other aircraft, closing at high speed from behind). Fighting the use of the term "drone" is like trying to change the popular use of "hacking". It's too late, and I'm not sure why it really matters. I don't think anyone is really confused when I say I'm flying a drone what I mean - they know it's not an armed Predator.

Isn't drone a buzzword and this type of craft is just a radio controlled plane. This tech is ancient. I thought drone implies it's self guiding.

by adamio 12y ago

Isn't drone a buzzword and this type of craft is just a radio controlled plane. This tech is ancient. I thought drone implies it's self guiding.

mod 12y ago

It is a buzzword, one that's very great at fear-mongering, and is getting RC planes grouped with UAVs that are killing people overseas. It's unfortunate. Assholes like the guy flying this drone aren't helping, either, for hobbyists that want to fly legally and responsibly, which as you note, has been going on for a very long time.

balls187 12y ago
The threat of a drone that can fire a missile at an airline seems to have the same net result as the threat of an RC plane that is flown illegally in restricted airspace dangerously close to an airline. I don't see it as fear mongering, given that both outcomes are bad, and I believe and the public should be aware that because RC tech is becoming cheaper and more popular, more idiots will get their hands on it.
- ynniv 12y ago
  That you think a few pounds of low speed balsa wood and a high explosive guided missile are equally dangerous to an aircraft exemplifies the problem.
  - balls187 12y ago
    How about I throw a few pounds of low-speed balsa wood into your car windshield at 75 mph/120kmph and see what happens? Now imagine what happens if you can get a car up to airline speeds. Your ignorance of the dangers of high speed collisions exemplifies exactly why this is alarming. Also, I recommend familiarizing yourself with Airline and Foreign Object Damage before continuing further.
    - ynniv 12y ago
      It's fine that you are worried about high speed collisions. Bird strikes are a serious problem, especially for small craft, and there's no reason to allow the public to increase the frequency of them. However, you compared them directly to guided, high explosive ordinance that are intentionally, reliably fatal for any sized aircraft. This is not a valid comparison, and is the core problem with the term "drone". I have had a few pounds of wood hit my windshield at high speed, and while it really scared me it had no long term impact on me or my car. I would not fair so well against a Hellfire missile. Edit: Impact of 2lb at 75mph ~= 1 Kj. Detonation of a Hellfire missile (9kg of TNT equiv) is 37.66 Mj. That's a four orders of magnitude difference, not taking into account the suitability for inflicting damage.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > How about I throw a few pounds of low-speed balsa wood into your car windshield at 75 mph/120kmph and see what happens? I'll take that over a missile any day.
  - artmageddon 12y ago
    I would counter that your ignorance exemplifies the problem. We already have hordes of idiots who shine laser beams into the flight decks of moving airplanes, blinding the pilots and causing major issues for flight operations. Living, breathing birds, which only weigh a few pounds, can take down single-engine airplanes as well as large jets, much like the one that landed in the Hudson River just outside of NYC a few years ago. You can bet a plane such as the one you describe would have disastrous effects, too.
anigbrowl 12y ago
People have been flying RC planes for a very long time, but in general they were an awful lot smaller and less capable than some of the offerings on the market now - even the serious hobbyist gas-engined planes usually had a windspan of only a few feet. But if you're a serious hobby you can get large jets for only a few thousand: http://www.skymasterjet.com/index1.htm http://www.skymasterjet.com/index1.htm RC Helicopters are even cheaper and the quadcopters are so easy to fly, and decent cameras so lightweight, that there are far more people using them than ever before. Suggesting that the current environment is the same as the historical one except for the popularity of the word 'drone' is simply inaccurate.

pseudometa 12y ago

The makers of such radio controlled deviced call them drones. It doesn't really pertain to 'self guiding' anymore.

baddox 12y ago
It never implied self-guiding. It was used to refer to remotely piloted target drones in World War II, and more recently to military UAVs that are remotely piloted by humans.

baddox 12y ago

"Drone" in this context just means "remote controlled aircraft." The term has been used that way since World War II. It doesn't imply autonomous flying, after all, even "Predator drones" are remotely piloted by humans.

rogerhoward 12y ago

I agree with other posters that the term is problematic, but most popular drone platforms do in fact have automated flight modes - everything from just stabilized fly-by-wire, to fully automated, GPS-plotted flight, to Return-to-Home when it gets out of range. I know people with multirotor craft that have 5-10km radio range; that should tell you something: at that range there's no way the drone is in sight range, though it is possible (and even common) to have FPV video, but that really doesn't give you the kind of vision needed to avoid all kinds of risks (especially other aircraft, closing at high speed from behind). Fighting the use of the term "drone" is like trying to change the popular use of "hacking". It's too late, and I'm not sure why it really matters. I don't think anyone is really confused when I say I'm flying a drone what I mean - they know it's not an armed Predator.