News Media, Camera Drones and whopping Lies

Los Angeles, CA—The redundancy of reported drone news fables claiming privacy invasion and endangerment are getting very tiresome.  Okay, I agree that these stories are still somewhat novel and interesting. 

Claims that the little camera drones are nearly colliding with conventional helicopter and other aircraft are nearly always patently bogus.  Careful examination by a journalist would expose the reality from fantasy.

Police and news helicopter pilots see their career days being numbered by the threat of drones eliminating their jobs.  Helicopters cost $1,500 to $2,500 per hour to keep in the air.  The drones cost nearly nothing!

Are the motives of helicopter pilots really pure when they disparage, denounce or otherwise criticize camera drones and their operators?  

Can a little camera drone bring down a helicopter or airplane?  I won’t say it’s impossible but it is incredibly unlikely.  There are thousands of collisions between large birds and planes every year.  Occasionally aircraft suffer minor damage but aircraft fatalities or serious air accidents from birds are beyond rare.

The camera drones are zero threat to helicopters. simply because the air movement or prop-wash cause by the large blades would blow little drones far away. 

I suppose a drone could be sucked into a jet engine perhaps causing a failure of that engine but causing an actual crash would be very unlikely.

No camera drone operator wants to see his beloved and expensive little toy destroyed.  The same goes for causing any kind of damage or injury.  Flying around conventional aircraft is dangerous but, much more so to the camera drone more than anything.

The safety record of the new camera drones is stellar and spotless.  Zero fatalities or serious injuries.  The same cannot be said about any conventional aircraft or large military drones.

The news media sends out journalists with, for the most part zero experience with these things to cover the “Chicken Little” stories of how bad things almost happened and sensationalism and loathing nearly always sets in. 

The same can be said about stories of the little drones invading privacy even though they can’t see or hear through walls or roofs.

The stories of some journalists know no bounds when fictional sensationalism is better than the truth.

There is yet to be one real case of unlawful privacy invasion with a camera drone brought forward in any court.

No industry needs camera drones more than the news media.  Recent financially lean years have shut down newspapers and caused pink slips to rain in nearly every newsroom. 

The camera drones produce clear, breathtaking still and video images needed for electronic newsgathering.  News organizations can operate far better with a few camera drones out in the viewer or reader’s neighborhoods than a single conventional helicopter.

Most of America is covered by small or medium market news organizations that don’t now have nor can afford helicopters.  Drones are their obvious answer!

A conventional helicopter, pilot and sometimes a photographer must be quickly scrambled to cover breaking stories.  Then they have to get to the scene and that takes time too.  A drone can be deployed within a minute or three by an operator in the neighborhood. 

The media needs to position itself at the very front of the fight with the FAA to use these in the course of daily newsgathering. 

There is a 1^st Amendment right that also needs to be protected.  The camera drones are no different than any other piece of news equipment such as a pencil, notepad or conventional camera.

The media has to begin factually reporting drone stories taking out the fables and claims that the sky is falling as a result of this exciting new technology.

It’s far easier to win this fight now at the point of FAA regulation and legislation than years of expensive court challenges.

The FAA Wants to Stop All of Those Pesky Civilian Drones!

The FAA is trying to regulate little camera drones like mine out of existence.  They have already been shot down for their over-reaching by a federal judge and the FAA has since appealed to a higher court.

Now the FAA is back at it, making a new rule and it’s really no better than what was struck down in court. They apparently want to prohibit professional photographers and journalists from capturing aerial images. 

The law requires government rules to be subjected to public a comment period that will run out later this month.  The rules carry heavy civil penalties but are not laws per say.   They are of course always subject to court challenge.

 My published Comment:   

 “The FAA wants jurisdiction over a rock thrown into the sky. Criminals can use all sorts of implements to endanger our aircraft and public safety. This is a local police responsibility already. Speaking as a small, multi-rotor and unmanned Phantom 2 camera drone operator the FAA should devote all their attention to conventional aviation.

The safety issues of the multi-rotor craft are less than insignificant than either general or commercial aviation! Despite thousands of these devices there has never been a fatality or even a remarkable injury! Property damage is nearly nonexistent! The FAA can argue that the sky will fall because that is always a remote possibility.

If there is going to be regulation over these devices it really needs to be in relation to their size, weight and altitude. Anything under 55 pounds should be left outside of the FAA's jurisdiction. I don't want to be redundant but this already is covered by local endangerment, assault laws and the police.

I cannot imagine the new astronomical budget of the FAA needed so that they can police every 12-year-old boy with a model aircraft! There must be a point in time where we have to stop the government monster from swallowing us all.

I speak only for the photographers that want to earn a few dollars taking needed and breathtaking images without subjecting the population to the risk of actual helicopters not to mention the cost. Professional photography and newsgathering is necessary in our world and that should not be prohibited.

Must our government always kill more private industry jobs and negatively impact our economy?”

As for me, the FAA will have to take my little drone, FROM MY DEAD COLD HANDS! 

You too can comment right here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396-0001