The "Reality" of Commercial UAV Use?

[Old Man]

Not to be topic diversionary, but the term "drone" is an abbreviation. The entire description is "target drone". Back as far as the 1940's a couple of companies started up to produce and provide operators for military target drones used in training their pilots. Later units were employed in Viet Nam for photo recon fly by missions. The early versions were more or less uncontrolled free flight with the Viet Nam era stuff programmed to fly an autonomous mission with little or no user input after launch. Much like a cruise missile. The maker of the Predator/Reaper (General Atomics) generated a considerable amount of their working capital in this area at that time. I don't think the term drone accurately defines our aircraft, although a couple of the better flight controllers do function rather well as programmed auto pilots. For us I believe the terms "unmanned" or "remotely controlled/piloted" or "RPV" are more technically correct since we maintain direct and continuous navigational input with our aircraft. Yea, I know it's just semantics but perception is everything these days. Too late now in any case.

 

[kloner]

from what i see drone = attention, rc aerial aircraft = under the radar..... use em wisely

it sure is a crappy term, in japan drone is them big unmanned helis that have been spraying there rice for generations.... we got blessed with a war intro

 

[Hexacrafter]

I agree STRONGLY with Kloner.
If the collective goal of those who visit and use this forum is to ensure that it continues to be "Lawful" to use our aircraft for both hobby and commerical uses, we should also start actively chosing our words and descriptions of our aircraft more carefully.
I like:
UAV Camera Platform
RC Aerial Camera Platform
Remote Controlled Aerial Camera Jib
Multirotor RC Aircraft
I now try now to never use the term "Dr*ne"...... not that I ever really liked that description.
When I use the descriptions above in talking with non-RC friends and relatives, they do not usually even understand what it is....
If you use the "Dr*ne" word, people automatically think of an aircraft dropping bombs in a Military Operation.
I like the way Wikipedia breaks it down into groups by use:
"UAVs typically fall into one of six functional categories (although multi-role airframe platforms are becoming more prevalent):

• Target and decoy – providing ground and aerial gunnery a target that simulates an enemy aircraft or missile
• Reconnaissance – providing battlefield intelligence
• Combat – providing attack capability for high-risk missions (see Unmanned combat air vehicle)
• Logistics – UAVs specifically designed for cargo and logistics operation
• Research and development – used to further develop UAV technologies to be integrated into field deployed UAV aircraft
• Civil and Commercial UAVs – UAVs specifically designed for civil and commercial applications"

Perhaps this forum can work on finding more "standardized" names and less "offensive" descriptions that will help us win "Public" approval & attention.
Sometimes we can be our own worst ememy. It does not help to have a "few" users gain public attention with careless, dangerous and unprofessionaly conducted flights that further "fuel" the already "negative" view most have... especially when you chose the word "Dr*ne".
Andrew

 

[Motopreserve]

It seems to me that several great ideas have been generated by this thread. And IMHO, a couple bad ones too.

I personally believe that a differentiation between the term "drones" and MRs/UAV/Aerial Platform etc needs to be made. And that is the sort of grassroots move that can be started on a forum like this. Many of us may have taken the easy path of simply using the term drone when speaking to non-pilots and the uninitiated. I have done this out of laziness, knowing it could move the conversation along. In the past, a thread regarding the terms used for our craft showed a sentiment of "it's too late to change the perception at this point" mentality - which I think is now coming back to bite us in the a**. The time it takes to set the term straight, and inform each individual who presents themselves to us, is time well spent and one more person educated and less likey to believe everything they see on TV.

The value of separating the "classes" of sUAS seems paramount, whether that be by size, intended uses, acceptable flight zones or all of the above. To allow the FAA to blanket categorize hobby with commercial, small aerial video MR with drone capable of targeting, is a great disservice to all of us, and any potential for small scale commercial growth. Anything we can do to to help clarify this can only help shape the debate.

The idea that I think could do the most damage is believing that commenting or speaking out about this will have absutely no effect. While I've been know. To be somewhat pessimistic - in a situation like this, I feel that our voices (especially en masse) can carry some weight in shaping the conversation. Much like the perception about voting, letting your voice be heard may help sway the electorate - or may steer the topic of debate.

While it may not have the same effect as a proper PAC or lawyers would, it could enable our lobby (at this point , seems like solely the AMA) to have one more bit of ammunition in their arsenal. At very least, the time it takes to craft a well worded explanation of where you stand certainly can't hurt.

The last thing I'll say is that joining the AMA is a great idea. They have been helping protect and develop the hobby for so long, and at times like these, when we see first hand what could happen without collective voice, it's all the more reason to sign up and help strengthen an organization that can use every bit of help it can get. That alone would make it worth it - not to mention the insurance and access to flight fields you otherwise would be without.

Just my 2.37¢