Drones and Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience has become rampant in the United States. This manifests not only as individuals ignoring laws they consider unfair or illegal, but entire municipalities -and even states- ignoring (or directly flaunting) national laws, on a variety of subjects.

Both the political ‘left’ and the’right’ are involved in this; some municipalities and states insist on determining who can enter our country (with or without proper identification and legal right), others determine what gun laws should be added to those legally in place at the federal level. Some determine which national gun laws should be ignored. Everyone has entered the ‘make your own laws’ game, it seems.

The UAS (drone) world is no different. While the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) claims the sole right to regulate and control U.S. airspace, some municipalities insist on the ‘right’ to add ordinances and rules pertaining to drones – rules and regulations which often directly contradict the intent and letter of the law promulgated by the FAA.

This form of rebellion has become widespread. While there are large interest groups both for and against issues like immigration, gun control, and other national issues, the recreational UAS (RUAS) sector has no large interest group to either A) protect against illogical and draconian drone laws at a federal level and B) protect against extra-legal drone ordinances instituted by many municipalities.

One example is the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder (Boulder, Colorado). They specify no UAS should be flown in Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP), except those under permit for scientific purposes. Denver has similar laws, applying both to its large number of city parks and to its considerable acreage of Denver Mountain Parks. While the FAA specifies no drones should be flown over large groups of people (such as might be encountered in a traditional park), the parks I mention are large open space and mountain parks, with no large concentrations of people. There is plenty of airspace that is not above trails and places larger groups of people might gather. Yet drones are excluded.

The Colorado DOT (Department of Transportation) website merely echoes the FAA regulations, and does not specify extra-legal requirements. In fact, it actually posts links to guides on responsible UAS flying (shown below):

Still, Colorado State Parks (SP Regulation 100-c 24) does not allow UAS flights in Colorado State Parks (except in specifically designated RC model flying areas). The conflicting rules illustrate how the ‘make your own laws’ craze has extended from municipalities, counties, and states to branches of state and federal government.

Other municipalities nationwide have tried to implement extra-legal drone laws, but have been overturned at federal trial. A suburb of Boston (Newton, MA) tried to outlaw drone flights, but a federal judge ruled:

” Newton’s choice to restrict any drone use below this altitude thus works to eliminate any drone use in the confines of the city, absent prior permission… This thwarts not only the FAA’s objectives, but also those of Congress for the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace. Although Congress and the FAA may have contemplated co-regulation of drones to a certain extent, see 81 Fed. Reg. 42063 § (III)(K)(6), this hardly permits an interpretation that essentially constitutes a wholesale ban on drone use in Newton. “

This has not stopped a number of other municipalities from trying similar regulations. Nevada has a law that allows citizens to sue if drones fly less than 250′ above their property (after being warned once). One Oregon town (Arlington) passed a law that specifies 400′ as the level (effectively excluding drones).

However, seven states have passed laws that forbid municipalities from passing ordinances that regulate drones: Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

UAV Drone Coach publishes a guide to drone laws in the U.S., which can be found at:

The FAA regulations theoretically cover all U.S. airspace, but another branch of the U.S. government is in violation of those rules, and holds a disobedient attitude, somehow claiming it holds the ultimate right to control airspace in the National Parks. The National Park Service excludes the flying of drones at not only national parks, but also above national seashores, national monuments, national recreation areas, and any other land controlled by the NPS. If the federal National Park Service does not obey the laws of the FAA, then it is little surprise the Colorado State Parks service does not obey the laws of the CO DOT (which reflect the current FAA laws).

In addition, the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management do not allow drone flights in some areas, such as archaeological sites, and wilderness areas. Of course, any national forest that is under a state of emergency (such as wildfires) excludes drone flights (in accordance with FAA rules against flying over emergency services personnel and sites).

It seems there is more organizational disobedience than civil disobedience by private citizens unaffiliated with any group. Yet the small numbers of civilian violators can be expected to increase, as more restrictive drone laws are considered and put in place.

The FAA’s proposed rules for Remote ID will virtually exclude every current drone from flight (except in small, designated RC model flying areas). Any drone (remote ID-capable or otherwise) that does not have an internet connection will not be allowed to fly.

With most of every national forest lacking internet connection, this virtually excludes all current drones (and even Remote ID-capable drones) from flying in national parks, if the proposed rules are adopted, and once they come into effect. Under these circumstances, I suspect we will see many more instances of civil disobedience, by private citizens ignoring draconian laws that do not accommodate legacy drones (and which appear to be thinly-veiled attempts to clear the skies of recreational UAS (RUAS), in order to pave the way for commercial UAS (CUAS)-based delivery of goods and services).

If the FAA continues to promote and implement laws that share the airspace and increase safety, we can expect fliers to obey those sensible laws. If they choose to implement laws which are unfair or biased towards commercial use, we can expect more and more civil disobedience from recreational fliers. This would exacerbate the situation, result in less safety, and contradict the FAA’s primary goals of airspace and aircraft safety.

The proposed “Remote ID’ rule (FAA Docket 2020-1100) is in the comment period, from January 2020 to 1 March 2020. After that, the FAA will consider the inputs and post their rules (or far less likely, abandon them or modify them). From that point, there will be eighteen months to be in compliance. This means that within the next 3-4 years (at most), all current drones will be grounded, and all drone manufacturers will have to make drones compliant with the new FAA regulations.

At that point, we can expect a marked increase in civil disobedience (at least in regards to drone laws). Sensible laws do not require enforcement, since virtually everyone recognizes the need for and fairness of the laws. Draconian, extra-legal, exclusionary, or contradictory laws require a lot of enforcement, if the common citizen cannot easily see the need for and logic of such laws.

Whether this proposed counter-legislation (rules not made by our elected representatives in a legislative body, but instead regulations imposed by civil servants of federal agencies, without consultation with our elected representatives) will result in disobedience is unclear. Only time will tell.

Either way, the more municipalities’ ordinances agree with state laws, and state laws agree with national laws, promoting a sensible, safe set of rules for aircraft and use of airspace, the more we will have safe fliers who willingly comply with the laws.

Generic Drone Checklist and Maintenance Schedule

Generic Drone Pre-Flight Checklist

Inspect propellers before installing (inspect for cracks, warping, chips, etc.), if applicable

Verify propellers are installed in their proper slots, if applicable

Verify propellers are securely connected to the motors

Ensure all (brushless) motors spin without friction

Ensure motors are securely mounted, and all electrical connections are secure

Inspect airframe and airframe legs for micro stress cracks

Inspect all external screws for tightness

Inspect camera lens for cracks and obstructions; clean if necessary

Inspect camera mount/gimbal (if applicable) for free movement

Inspect all obstacle-avoidance cameras and sensors; clean if necessary

Verify all air inlets are free from obstruction(s)

Inspect battery case for corrosion and cleanliness of connections

Inspect battery for warping and cracks; inspect connectors

Verify battery is securely mounted in compartment

Verify antennae are positioned properly, and free of damage

Verify battery is fully charged

Ensure battery warning threshold is set to 35% (if selectable)

Drone Controller Pre-Flight Checklist

Verify controller batteries are fully charged

Ensure controller display is clean

Inspect interconnection cables for kinks, deformation, or nicks in insulator

Inspect interconnection cable ends for damage or obstructions

Verify ‘joysticks’ operate freely

Confirm controller and drone video displays are clearly visible

Confirm operation of FPV goggles (if applicable)

Verify phone/tablet batteries (if used) are fully charged

Ensure shade hood is securely fastened to controller (if available)

Flight Area Pre-Flight Survey

Check applicable sectional charts and verify intended flight path is not subject to restrictions

Obtain all required clearances (if applicable)

Note all potential obstacles in intended flight path

Check forecasted weather in intended flight area and environs

Check for forecasted solar flares in your flight area

Verify the flight plan accounts for all obstacles

Ensure drone RTH altitude is set higher than all potential obstacles

Ensure flight pad is equipped with landing marker and safety equipment

Drone Crew Pre-Flight Checklist

Confirm pilot is well-rested and ready to fly

Confirm pilot’s ability to perform basic unassisted flight maneuvers on intended drone

Verify pilot is equipped with visual flight aids (such as eyeglasses and/r sunglasses)

Ensure pilot is qualified to fly intended drone and perform basic maneuvering and obstacle avoidance

Establish voice or radio communications with VO (Visual Observer)

Ensure VO (and other crew members, if applicable) are briefed on flight plan and mission parameters

Ensure VO is equipped with sunglasses and binoculars

Drone In-Flight Checklist

Launch the drone and allow it to hover (note the altitude)

Command the drone 2 feet forward, and then return to hover position (note the altitude)

Command the drone 2 feet to the rear, and then return to the hover position (note the altitude)

Command the drone 2 feet to the left, and then return to the hover position (note the altitude)

Command the drone 2 feet to the right, and then return to the hover position (note the altitude)

Verify the drone maintained the same hover altitude after each of the steps above

Verify drone response to yaw command

Command the gimbal to its lowest position and verify smooth motion

Command the gimbal to its highest position and verify smooth motion

Verify all flight indicator lamps and LEDs are operable

Verify drone RTH (Return to Home) function (if applicable) is operable

Drone Post-Flight Checklist

Perform visual inspection of entire drone

Complete flight log, noting any anomalies and/or problems

Annotate flight log with hours of flight time and flight map

Ensure all batteries discharge from full charge (but not less than 20%)*

*Modern battery tenders will automatically discharge LiPo batteries to an appropriate storage level

Drone Maintenance Schedule

Daily (or for each flight)

Pre-flight checks

Post-flight checks

Weekly

Clean camera lens with appropriate cloth (and cleaner, if necessary)

Clean and inspect position cameras and sensors

Inspect batteries to ensure casings are not warped or cracked

Perform compass calibration (if available)

Perform IMU calibration (if available)

Monthly

Calibrate drone position gimbals

Verify registration markings remain clear and un-obscured

Inspect propeller mounting springs

Ensure propeller quick-release screws are tight

Semi-Annually

Verify firmware updates are current (and contain no known ‘bugs’)

Calibrate collision and vision-positioning sensors (if applicable)

Annually

Lubricate camera gimbal mounts

Legacy Drones and FAA Remote ID

Any decent plan for implementation of a new technology allows a path for integration with existing legacy technology. More precisely, any decent plan integrates the new technology seamlessly into the older (legacy) technology. These plans specify a phased approach to integrating the old technology and either upgrading it to work with the new, or to phase the old out after a period of time. The proposed FAA Remote ID rules do none of these things.

In a heavy-handed manner typical of big government, the FAA proposal simply pushes the older technology out, creating large numbers of outmoded drones (UAS) and unhappy citizens. The general idea is that if the older drones cannot undergo expensive refits to work with the FAA proposal, they simply can no longer fly.

It is like saying ‘now that we have jets, if propeller planes do not refit to jets, they can’t fly’. Or if cars that cannot be tracked real-time don’t upgrade, they can no longer drive on the roads. That paradigm is not only ridiculous, but it ignores a number of ways the legacy drone fleet could successfully integrate into the new ‘Remote ID’ airspace.

First, if the FAA plan seeks only to provide a remote ID function, one already exists. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) is a mature technology that could easily add a remote identification capability to legacy UAS. If a ‘digital license plate’ is all the FAA wants, then addition of a simple RFID tag coded to the FAA registration could provide this. An RFID tag that can be interrogated (‘read’) from up to two hundred meters away costs about twenty dollars currently (January 2020).

I suggest the method proposed by the FAA is not due to lack of intelligence, foresight, or knowledge of how best to integrate new technologies, but in response to political (and financial?) pressure by major corporations pushing for the advent of commercial UAS (CUAS) delivery fleets. Rather than try to figure out a way to merge with existing technology, the CUAS operators simply want to push the older drones from the skies, clearing the way for their delivery operations.

The proposed FAA rules are (in my opinion) simple a quasi-legal way to accomplish this goal. ‘Oh no, we are not trying to push older recreational UAS (RUAS) from the skies; we are merely specifying a technology’… and if the older UAS fleet cannot upgrade to it, then, well then…they are pushed out of the skies. Pretty slick, but not even the FAA is going to argue with Amazon and the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course, recreational fliers are the perfect target for a bully. We exhibit the same attributes any bully looks for: relatively powerless (both financially and politically), no ‘big brother’ or larger entity to stand up for us, and no objective adult to step in and stop the bullying. It’s a perfect setup.

Now, the problem is exacerbated further by a bias toward the large corporations. They are the ones wishing to enter the airspace for deliveries. As such, the onus to integrate should be on them; after all, they are the ones with the resources to implement costly remote ID schemes, and they are the ones who will profit immensely from operating in the airspace. They need to merge…to demonstrate a capability to operate safely in an airspace with existing UAS which do not have remote ID capability.

Yet instead of adopting a paradigm of merging safely and operating with the existing aircraft, they adopt a paradigm of push all others out of the airspace so they can fly. It’s not merging…it’s ‘get the heck out of our way.’

This issue could be solved relatively easily. Recreational UAS (RUAS) do not provide an ongoing safety hazard, nor do they constitute an obstacle to the implementation of CUAS delivery services. Consider the nature of most RUAS flights; they are for short periods of time, and for limited distances. Battery technology allows the longest-flying UAS to brag about a mere thirty minutes of flight time. The most ‘long-legged’ UAS flights brag of going…five miles. Their altitude is limited to four hundred feet AGL (Above Ground Level).

Now, avoiding aircraft who exhibit such limitations is not difficult. Simple airspace segregation would accomplish the majority of the task. A protocol for right of way (and automatic enforcement) would accomplish a great deal of the goal. Rudimentary collision avoidance could accomplish the rest.

These are easily-implemented solutions that do not depend on new technologies, costly upgrades, or expensive drones. In fact, the RUAS fleet need not even concern themselves with these issues. As the CUAS delivery drones are the ones merging into an existing airspace, the requirement should be on them to avoid all aircraft, modern or legacy. The remote ID requirements are applicable to (and necessary for) a large CUAS delivery fleet…not for RUAS drones.

The recreational drones are included in these criteria, ostensibly as ‘fair play’, but the reality is this is just a way to exclude them from the airspace. It’s like saying ‘sure you can have horses…but they need to be able to keep up with cars, have lights, turn signals, brake lights, and a license plate.’ No one is overtly excluding horses, but simply by specifying a set of criteria horses could never meet, they are excluded. The same situation applies to RUAS.

The biggest obstacle might not even be the CUAS sector. It is quite likely the Department of Homeland Security people, insisting on real-time tracking capability on all aircraft operating in the national airspace. Through a misguided and myopic desire to attain complete control of the national airspace, they forget a few basic truths:

Any enemies of the U.S. are unlikely to be deterred by Remote ID requirements. They will either ignore the system, or work within it. Any such enemies are quite likely to use swarms of drones, or higher-capacity drones like their version of the Raptor and Predator drones. It is truly unlikely that they would use a DJI Phantom (with a limited payload) to wreak havoc on our nation. Obsession with control and the illusion of safety can cause myopia, or even blindness, as is demonstrated in this proposal.

The whole safety thing is merely a ploy, something that sounds good and can be used to implement their proposals. Considering that nothing in the remote ID proposal does a single thing to prevent accidents and collisions, it contributes not one iota towards actual air safety. The best they can come up with is limited prevention and perhaps improved collision avoidance…if everyone plays the game, and plays it well. The reality will (I am quite sure) be something different.

Safety. It’s a great front. Anyone who opposes the plan can be accused of not wanting to support safety. Same with national security. But don’t be fooled; this is merely a ill-conceived ploy of big business and big government to exclude recreational UAS from the skies. Merge, my eye! Integrate, my arse!

We can probably spare our words and vitriol and alternative plans. Once Google and Amazon and D.H.S. set their eye on something, it is as good as done. Jesus coming down from the skies with a better remote ID plan in hand probably couldn’t change this one. The fix is in, the deal has been made, and now, we just need to quietly knuckle under and go fly our outmoded toys in the designated areas, with RC airplanes zipping past us and other older drones in an air traffic nightmare.

As you may have inferred, I am not hopeful the FAA will implement one of the more easily implementable solutions, or that the commercial sector will assume the majority of the responsibility for making this new notional scheme a reality. Instead, I sadly envision what the proposal says; recreational UAS limited to tiny playgrounds, while the commercial drones fly in the space we once flew (relatively) freely in.

But, hey, what am I complaining about? What are the rights and desires of a handful of recreational drone nuts, compared to quicker pizza delivery, or your girlfriend’s new socks coming right to her door? Us Luddites just need to wake up and smell the coffee, get used to the Brave New Drone World. Did we expect anything else? Really?

Still, I am not going to stop trying to formulate alternate plans for submission to the FAA, to carefully craft my response to the proposal, and to continue to hope. I, for one, am not going to be pushed easily into some crappy little approved drone playground. Not after I’ve tasted the relative freedom of UAS flight as it is today.

FAA: Closing the New View on the World

Well, no sooner had drones opened up a new window on the world, a new view of it, than government agencies began to regulate it. Even though drones do not typically fly in what is considered traditional airspace, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) in the U.S. (and other agencies elsewhere) began to regulate where, when, and how they could fly.

Now this amazing view of the world has become open to the common person, the FAA is planning to close it. Per new FAA rules being considered, recreational drone flying will soon (within three years) be subject to draconian rules that will make drone flying virtually impossible (or at least impractical and financially unfeasible) to those same common folks the view was recently opened to.

The FAA’s ‘remote drone ID’ scam (I mean, scheme) will so severely regulate drone flying for recreational purposes that it will be virtually impossible to fly the skies as freely as we do now – or at all. The rule will (in part) require internet access for drones, thus eliminating many of the beautiful natural places one might wish to view or record. Most of those exquisite places one might want to film do not have cellular coverage or internet access (especially from a drone).

This is a thinly veiled attempt by large commercial drone concerns to clear the skies of recreational drones, force them into small, limited, ‘approved’ drone flying areas. Of course, this is required if these large concerns (such as Amazon and other corporations who want to use that airspace for unimpeded delivery routes) are to take over and control the skies we are now allowed to fly in.

Of course, this will be sold to us as a necessary regulation, for our own good, and for that elusive and imaginary animal, safety. But don’t be fooled – this is a plan to take over the skies, and force citizen fliers out of them. Not only do large corporations benefit from (and support) this plan, police and military organizations also support it. After all, who wants those pesky civilians flying around looking at things we may not want them to look at? Who wants us flying our recreational drones in the way of those Pizza Hut and Amazon delivery drones?

If we do not buy the wooden nickel idea of it being for our own good or our own safety, then the FAA is perfectly willing to force it down our throats under the auspices of national security. As if terrorists or foreign military will be stopped by some FAA regulations or limitations imposed on manufacturers of recreational drones. Either those rascals are smoking dope..or think we are.

Now, the idea (plan) is theoretically up for comment and evaluation of said comment, and supposedly subject to elimination or modification. But one thing is for sure: any comment or plethora of comments by recreational drone fliers will not modify the plan by one bit. The fix is in, the bribes have been paid, and the influence already peddled. Comments will most likely not result in less regulation, but in more. For after all, the voices the FAA is listening to is not from the many concerned citizens, but to those of other government organizations, or of large corporations with huge lobbies and large amounts of political clout. This period for comment is nothing more than a formality, a cover-your-ass method of going through the motions.

It’s a sad state of affairs. I grew up thinking the United States led the way in promoting freedom and liberties, yet here we are promoting just the opposite. The government is (in this particular instance and many others) promoting more regulation and restriction, less freedom and liberty. The country that once led the way in promoting freedom and liberty is now leading the way in promoting regulation and restriction. Of course, other governments (not to be outdone) will certainly follow suit, perhaps with even more restrictive rules and regulations.

It’s not like we couldn’t or didn’t see this freight train coming. We know by experience that no good idea has reached its time before someone in government wants to restrict or regulate it…if not for a good reason, then just on simple GP (General Principles). It’s just what they do. Some underpaid GS-13 civil service worker with nothing to do is hardly going to say no to anything that increases their power – or personal profit. No one is going to tell a senior senator or the Department of Fatherland (I mean Homeland) Security no. You just don’t tell the Gestapo or the combined police forces no. You certainly don’t tell the large multinational corporations no. Besides, what poorly-paid civil servant would say no to some ‘perks’ offered under the table to get this thing rolling, so Amazon can start delivering socks or Pizza Hut start delivering garlic breads?

You may think, Dear Reader, that I am sounding like some sort of deranged anarchist here: maybe a storm-crow or a Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling. You may get the (patently false) idea that I am a master of hyperbole, and am just sounding the alarm or crying wolf for the fun of it.

Just wait. I’d bet the farm that time will prove me otherwise. Mark my words – this plan will not result in a safer, better airspace, with non-intrusive yet effective controls on our flying. No! It will result in more fees paid by the common citizen, more regulations and restriction on where, what, and how they can fly. It will result in the skies being opened to Big Business and Big Government, and closed to the common citizen wishing to take his or her drone out for some good video or fun flying.

The FAA comment period is for thirty days, starting 1 January, 2020. This ‘eleventh hour’ tactic is typical. Give us little time to prepare comments, and little time in which to submit them. But if you care about the future of recreational drone flying…if you don’t want that nice new drone you bought to become a useless hunk of junk, relegated to flying around in little air-parks with a bunch of RC planes, then get your comments ready. Make your voices heard.

I plan on respectfully submitting both technical and legal observations, and stating my objections in language and terms the government can understand. I’d like to somehow convey that these people are public servants,not the public masters they seem to think they’ve become. Be sure of this; these proposed regulations don’t serve the public – they serve big business, big government, and private interests. They serve profits, not people. They promote regulation, not regular people.

So get your comments ready, and let your voice (your oh-so rational and well-stated voice) be heard. In the three years before your words are totally ignored and the intended restrictions imposed, get out there and FLY…fly, while the skies are still relatively free.

Drones: Opening a New View on the World



The relatively recent advent of recreational drones (especially ‘camera drones’) has opened up an entirely new view of the world, one up to now seen only by birds. Drones can fly where even airplanes can’t, and open up views of the world no human has seen before.

Since the advent of these drones (and the common posting of videos on YouTube, etc.), I and many others have been afforded unique views of places worldwide – places we’ve never seen, and never could see, from that angle. This has opened a new window into our world, giving us a better understanding of and appreciation for the world we live in.

With improved perspective, we often have improved understanding. With a broader view of the world, we can formulate better ways of interacting with it. The benefits are not just artistic or philosophical, they can be tangible and quite real.

Not only can this new view of the world help with pure artistic viewing pleasure (or the mere assuaging of curiosity), it can help in other more practical areas, from farming, to building planning, to a variety of other technical applications. The ease of attaining these views (without cost for satellite imagery or expensive aerial photography) has made this benefit more widely accessible to a range of business, technical, scientific, and personal concerns. The potential benefits are still not fully explored (or imagined).

Imagine the time and effort saved by some of these possible views; climbers on big mountains could actually inspect the route before ascending, or select best routes for ascent based on aerial reconnaissance of a variety of possible routes. Hikers and backpackers could check the trail ahead to be sure passage is possible, or to anticipate and plan for obstacles. Cowboys could check up a draw or gully for stray cattle, rather than riding potentially difficult trails to find out by direct viewing. Search and rescue specialists could scout ahead, cover more ground faster – a real benefit when time is of the essence.

The point is, to no small degree, drone viewing is direct viewing…in some cases better than being there, since the variety of angles and altitudes a place can be viewed at (in relatively short time) by a drone cannot be duplicated by a person on the ground.

This new view of the world, and the increased amount of the world (and its happenings) that can be viewed could conceivably be used to observe and monitor citizen-police interactions, questionable actions by government or law enforcement agencies, or to get increased real-time coverage of events from a variety of viewpoints.

I’m not sure this increased visibility will be welcomed or tolerated by police, government, or military entities and agencies (for that matter, by anyone who is not okay with their actions being visible to anyone…e,g., those with something to hide). Even if there is no good reason to do so, the trend in government is as soon as something new appears (whether technology or behavior), regulate it. I cannot see this new window on the world that drones give us staying open for long – at least not as long as the authorities have anything to say about it.

Yet for now, the window is open, and the new view of the world is available to us. I, for one, am going to take advantage of it while I can…document some adventures, record some epic sites and scenes, do that aerial reconnaissance of places I might want to hike or climb to (or ski/snowboard down), get some amazing video and camera shots from epic places while I am still ‘allowed’ to.

Yes, drones have opened up a new window on the world, provided a new view of it -0 but that window may only be open for so long, before the restrict and regulate crowd get to work (all for our own good, of course).

Yet for now the window is open and the view is amazing. So let’s get out there and fly, free as a bird as long as we can. Let’s see those unique views while they are still legal. Let’s have that unique experience before it becomes a story of the past…back in the days when one could actually fly a drone – anywhere they wanted.

So what are you waiting for? Get out there and fly…fly free.



DJI Mavic Mini: Impressions

The preeminent drone manufacturer in the world (DJI) has recently released a new addition to their ‘Mavic’ series of drones; the DJI Mavic Mini. This drone is notable for a number of reasons, not the least its small size and low weight. I recently purchased one, and am inspired to share some of my initial thoughts on this aircraft.

Of course, the drone reviewers on YouTube made quite a bit of fanfare about this drone, focusing on its size and capabilities (which are all noteworthy). They obtained pre-release ‘beta’ drones, so I had a chance to familiarize myself with the aircraft and its capabilities prior to the official release (in the fall of 2019).

Pretty much everyone agreed that the drone was exceptional, and pretty much everyone ranted about how great it was. These were people who already had other, more expensive drones, so their positive comments seemed even more credible, in light of the drones they had to compare with Mini to.

Before I begin my own impressions of the drone (and summarize those of others), let’s get one thing right; this drone is a marvel of technology. It is also a marvel of manufacturing, and of marketing, but let’s stick to the technology part for now…

The drone is what is loosely classified as a ‘camera drone’. It has a gimbal-mounted, High Definition plus (2.7K) video camera (which also serves as a 12MP still camera), with a 1/2.3″ CMOS sensor. While we have become accustomed to high-quality camera sensors (and a bit jaded about them), the fact is this is an incredible camera, which just a few years ago would claim an almost unbelievable level of performance. Remember, Ansel Adams and Fan Ho used far less capable cameras in creating their now-famous pictorial art. Many famous movies were shot on far less capable cameras.

For those not familiar with the operation of a gimbal, it is a device that acts as a camera/sensor mount, and rotates (in three axis- pitch, yaw, and roll) as needed to maintain a level platform for the camera. This alone is a marvel of modern technology, especially at the size and performance level DJI has offered. The end effect of all this is that the drone can move about in the wind, maneuver through turns and banks, and still maintain a steady, level camera shot. It is mechanical image stabilization at its finest.

Let’s look below at some more of the camera specifications:

Mavic Mini Camera Specifications

  • Sensor: 1/2.3″ CMOS
  • Pixels: 12 million (12MP)
  • Lens FOV: 83°
  • (Effective) Aperture: f/2.8
  • Electronic Shutter Speed: – 1/8000s
  • Still Image Size: 4:3 (4000 × 3000)
  • Still Image Size: 16:9 (4000 x 2250)
  • Video Image: 2.7K (ultra HD)
  • Max Video Bit Rate: 40 Mbps

Note the 12MP (mega-pixels) capability of the camera for ‘still’ photos. Since many of our smart-phones boast as much, we have become a bit jaded as to what exactly that means. It means a image resolution that is almost beyond belief, especially for such a tiny sensor. I won’t bore you with techno-geek rambling about specifics, but for those wishing to delve into the subject more deeply, I have found the YouTube channel ‘Filmmaker IQ’ to be very interesting and informative (and geared for those who arrive with little or no knowledge). The fact remains that this is a very capable camera, mounted on a three-axis gimbal, that exceeds what you might expect for performance.

Okay, so the camera is great. So what? Well, the ‘so what’ part is that this video/still camera is mounted on a drone. It captures aerial images, at angles previously impossible to capture (at least for the common photographer). That alone is incredible, even though we are quickly becoming (ho-hum) used to such incredible technology.

Add to that the fact that the drone itself is capable of speeds up to thirteen meters per second (about 28.3 mph or 50 kph in ‘sport’ mode), and it truly begins to seem a marvel of modern technology. But when we consider all these features are packed into a package that weighs 249 grams (250 with SD memory card, slightly over half a pound), it approaches the downright incredible. Not only is the drone light weight, it folds into about the size of an old-fashioned, portable ‘transistor radio’ (a more modern correlation is about the size of two packages of Ramen noodles, stacked one atop the other).

This is indeed a marvel of modern technology, but when you consider the basic drone costs less than four hundred dollars (even with a tariff on Chinese-made products), it is even more remarkable…an affordable marvel of modern technology. With the ‘fly more’ kit (a carrying case, drone, controller, and three-battery charger with batteries) coming in at just under five hundred dollars, it is a portable, affordable marvel of modern technology (the kit in its carrying case is about the size of a medium-sized hard-cover book).

The batteries alone are worth mentioning. The flight time provided by these ‘smart’ batteries is listed at thirty minutes per battery, which exceeds the flight time of most (more expensive) drones.

For those interested in more details about performance and specifications, visit the DJI web site at https://www.dji.com/mavic-mini/specs .

I could go on an on about this drone – and will, in future blog posts. I have ranted about some of the challenges associated with the drone, and about some of the joys of it. You can watch these on my YouTube channel “69th Drone Detachment”. I will undoubtedly make some posts on why I love the Mavic Mini..and why I hate it. But love it or hate it, all must admit that the drone is exceptional: exceptional performance, price, and product.

Stay tuned for more about this exceptional, fun little drone. Or better yet, get one and find out for yourself!

Old Pilots and Bold Pilots

There’s a saying in the aviation world (or so they tell me…); there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

Well, when it comes to flying drones, we may not die if we make a mistake, so conceivably there could be old and bold drone pilots (just watch a video of FPV racing to witness the bold part). Yet the moral of the story remains relevant; if you are a ‘bold’ pilot, you will almost certainly crash your drone. Since it is not fatal, you may live to crash many drones…if you continue to fly ‘boldly’.

I think a more accurate term than bold might be ‘outside the limits of your and your aircraft’s ability’. Boldness may be required in some flying situations (like FPV racing, for example), but what really causes crashes is (as far as I can discern):

-Not having an accurate concept of your own ability

-Not having a good understanding of flight physics

-Not having a good understanding of your aircraft’s capabilities and limitations

-Not having good situational (and spatial) awareness

…all of which equate to not having precise control of yourself and your aircraft.

While I can learn to accurately assess the abilities of myself and my aircraft through logging successful flight hours, that is limited in scope. I figured I needed a way to gain experience from other pilots’ mistakes and successes, a way to gain a lot of virtual experience in a relatively short time.

In the climbing and mountaineering world, the annual publication Accidents in North American Mountaineering serves this purpose. It outlines the conditions, actions, and mistakes leading to serious or fatal accidents. Since there is no direct correlative in the flying world (that I am aware of), I had to look elsewhere. Where could I find documentation of crashes, and perhaps objective data indicating what caused those crashes?

Some of the manufacturer forums do occasionally show posts regarding flight accidents and crashes, and sometimes they are even accompanied by a subjective narrative and an objective look at flight logs. However, this resource is fairly limited.

FAA reports are (at best) lengthy, and cover only manned aircraft, limiting their utility. The FAA Pilot’s License training can help a bit, addressing attitudes, failure of maintenance, inspection, and actions of the flight crew, but its utility for drone pilots is also limited.

I discovered that YouTube ‘drone crash’ videos can be of help. They show video of many drone flights leading up to the accident, and sometimes recording of the flight interface screen, with some telemetry data. The flying abilities of each pilot are quickly discerned by watching the flight prior to the crash. The self-assessment abilities of the pilot are often indicated by their comments in the video.

These comments seem to fall into one of three general categories:

-A sober admission of any flight errors or conditions

-A devil-may-care ‘laughing off’ of the crash

-A denial of any responsibility in the crash, and an attempt to fix blame on the aircraft or conditions

I feel like I can learn a lot from each.

As I continue to fly, I will search for more and more experiential records, so I can learn from the mistakes and successes of other pilots. I’d like to end up old and bold…but keep my drones crash-free. Improving my skills, logging flight hours, and learning from the experiences of others are my primary tools in accomplishing this goal.

That’s all for now…the skies are blue, and the ‘wild blue yonder’ calls…

The Brave New Drone World Is Upon Us…

The world has changed -drastically- and most of us aren’t even aware of it yet. The skies are now clear…but not for long. Soon, we can expect to see the heavens populated with drones: recreational drones, race drones, delivery drones, police drones, and many other types of drones. With major companies like Google and Amazon pushing for the advent of commercial drones, the job is as good as done.

The problem is, to accomplish that feat, they must first push recreational drones from the skies – or into narrowly-defined flight lanes. Their lobbyists are already working hard on this project, clearing the skies for delivery drones (and many other types of commercial drones). The advent of personal, recreational flying has barely gotten off the ground, and it is already nearly grounded.

Drones for personal use can expect to be confined to designated flying areas (much like those which already exist for legacy RC -Radio Controlled- aircraft). In the U.S., the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) has limited drone flights to under four hundred feet, and within specific areas not excluded for flight. Not to be outdone, many municipalities have implemented almost Draconian drone laws, which exceed their own legal authority and circumvent the authority of the FAA (which alone claims the right to regulate air traffic in the U.S.).

Much of the furor and fear-based legislation is fueled by ignorance, and an extreme misunderstanding of the capabilities of drones. Just as Luddites railed against (then) modern-day technologies, the modern-day Luddites seek to somehow stop or curtail the advent of the (brave, new) ‘drone world’. Fearing an intrusive set of eyes in the sky, they seek to hold off the march of technology with ill-conceived rules and regulations. Somehow they figure to ‘protect their privacy’ from the (as they understand it) all-seeing eyes of drones.

This is based on a colossal ignorance of drone capabilities and limitations. The bald fact is that most drones are not capable of effective ‘spying’ – even when equipped with High-Definition cameras. In an incongruous leap of illogic, people welcome intrusive technologies like Nest and Google Home into their houses, yet somehow fear drones will discover what the spies they invited into their homes won’t. They accept video cameras on virtually every intersection and every business, yet quail at the idea of a flying camera. They blithely accept ‘dash-cams’ on every modern car, yet tremble at the thought of an airborne camera. They don’t blink an eye at government projects which view entire metropolises with incredible resolution, yet somehow fear little Johnny next door and his five hundred dollar drone.

When swarms of micro-drones can be launched from an airplane, and drones exist which mimic (and look like) various birds, insects, and hummingbirds, a relatively large and slow-moving drone like those sold for private use hardly seem nefarious…to the educated. Yet the plain fact is, the majority of the population is anything but educated in regards to drones and their capabilities.

Which perhaps brings us to a basic review of drones and drone technology. The history of drones is relatively short, yet incredible changes have come since drones first rose in our skies. At present, we might be considered to be in the first-generation (1G) of drones…at the level of private ownership, at least. These drones are minimally intelligent, yet offer some quasi-modern features, such as GPS tracking, programmed flight control, and relatively high-definition cameras.

Yet even as you read this, the second generation of more intelligent drones has begun to be sold to the public. These drones are virtual super-computers, equipped with AI (Artificial Intelligence), and the ability to host a variety of sensors and payloads, the ability to fly autonomously. Of course, the AI is ‘only’ what is termed ‘narrow AI’ (AI directed at one specific task or set of tasks – in this case, obstacle avoidance). More advanced AI, such as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) are still on the horizon…or perhaps more accurately, just barely over the horizon.

So what’s all the fuss about? Ostensibly people are concerned with drones being able to film them while they toast their flesh poolside, or maybe the drones will fall from the skies, killing little Barkie, their favorite dog. Some are perhaps worried that drones will peer into their windows and film them at whatever naughtiness they engage in while in the privacy of their own homes.

These are fears mostly promoted by those who have a financial incentive to oppose the general recreational flying of drones. These fears are again mostly based in ignorance. Closing a curtain will fool even the best camera. Using a little modesty poolside will prevent drones from peeking from above (or neighbors peeking over the fence). Using a basic understanding of statistics will reveal they are more likely to be hit by a falling plane (or an errant baseball) than they are by a falling drone.

Yet the fear and ignorance persist. This is not unexpected, to a degree. After all, people were afraid automobiles were the advent of the collapse of society, telephones would somehow kill them or spy on them, and autonomous vehicles would drive them right into the nearest semi truck. It’s sort of part of the technology learning curve; we fear what we don’t understand…and most don’t understand drones.

We’ve already exhausted all the old Luddite objections to flight; if God meant us to fly, He’d have given us wings, what goes up must come down…on someone’s head, et cetera, et cetera, etc. So what is the source of our objections to drones (beyond technological ignorance of their capabilities, limitations, and implementation challenges)?

Our societal image of drones consists primarily of artifacts from our media: images of Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles onto unsuspecting terrorists, and of evil, flying robots bent on the destruction of humanity (a la Hollywood, etc.). When we think of drones, we think of surveillance, of retribution from above and from afar. We don’t think of drones delivering much-needed medical supplies to a remote site in Africa, of firefighting drones checking the area before firefighters enter, of search and rescue drones finding lost people much more quickly than human-based searches could. We don’t think of much-reduced delivery times of products we order online, or of deliveries right to our door. We think of a semi-grainy image, festooned with indecipherable technical icons, and a view of humans being destroyed from above…by an un-manned aircraft. That is the image that gets stuck in our collective mind. It will take a long time to change that, and until it does change, drones will be viewed with a mixture of fear, suspicion, and outright distrust.

For better or worse, the skies above us have changed. Remember when the sight of someone using a cell phone [to watch video or search the internet] was rare? It wasn’t that long ago. How quickly we became accustomed to people peering into tiny screens. I suspect it will be much the same with drones; they are fairly rare now, but we’ll begin to see more and more of them, in business and private use. Once they become common (Amazon and Pizza Hut start delivering orders, for example), we’ll quickly become accustomed to them.

The sight of our once (relatively) clear skies will be a forgotten relic of the past, or perhaps an oddity to be experienced when visiting a National Park or wilderness area. We won’t blink an eye as delivery drones zip by, police drones hover above, and selfie drones fill the skies. Our ears will learn to tune out the insect-like hum of drone motors, just like we have learned to tune out the monotonous ‘droning’ sound of traffic. All will be well in our brave new drone world; our pizzas and presents will be delivered quickly, and right to our location, our criminals will be arrested and our enemies killed, our selfies (now called ‘dronies’) taken.

I am not a Luddite or a storm-crow. I do not sing a song of woe, nor am I a harbinger of disaster. Drones are (just as real drones are in the hive) tools, miraculous devices which can be used for good or ill. Whatever they end up being used for (most likely a bit of both good and evil, if human history is any indication), they are here to stay.

It’s Pandora’s quandary; we can’t just make them go back in the box, wish them away, or legislate them into the background. They are here, they are now, and they are coming in waves. So when you look into the sky, don’t just see the ‘same old thing’. Take a minute to see a sky with only birds, clouds, and a few planes. Enjoy it, for that will soon become a rare sight, especially in areas with any type of population density at all.

The ‘drone invasion’ came silently, as did the advent of much technology; talked about as an oddity at first, experienced as a rarity (at first), and eventually integrated into what we call the every-day, ‘commonplace’ (or ‘modern’) world. It comes not with a roar and a bang, but with an almost-silent, soft droning sound.

Whether the advent of drones will have more impact than that of AI (Artificial Intelligence) remains to be seen. Both seem to go (or come) hand in hand, to a degree. Whatever the advent of AI or other future technologies will be, one thing is for certain; the advent of drones is a revolution in itself, with far-reaching and (most likely) unseen results and consequences. It could be a dystopian hell to some, a fascinating modern world to others. Either way, it’s here, and it’s in the process…now.

Introducing…Me

This WAS an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. I didn’t enroll in one of their ten programs, but hope I started my blog right.

Hi, it’s me. I’m relatively new to the drone world, and want to document my exposure to it and experience in it. I come from a technical background (radar, satellite communications, and fiber optics), so am a ‘pre-made geek’, ready to fly…

I started with a DJI Mavic Mini, but planned to branch out to FPV and racing drones as well (before the FAA NPRM gave me pause for thought). I also ordered a SkyDio 2, since I like the idea of a drone following me as I snowboard or ride motorcycles through Colorado. I also like the idea of owning and flying the world’s first recreational AI super-computer…

I will most likely write about serious subjects, and occasionally leaven them with some levity. I’ll write about drone items in the news that catch my eye (or my imagination), technology, military drones, drone regulation, FAA issues, and drone impact on society.

Why do this?

  • Because (according to WordPress) it gives new readers (you, Dear Reader) context. What are you about? (Drones.) Why should they read your blog? (‘Cause they’re about drones.)
  • Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it (left this section untouched, as I agree)

The post can be short or long (ok), a personal intro to your life (don’t think anyone wants that), or a bloggy mission statement (uh-oh), a manifesto for the future (Behold the great and terrible Ozymandius, king of kings), or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish (now we’re talking).

To help you get started, here are a few questions (okay):

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal? (I would like to open a dialog, to share my insights, and hear those of others)
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about? (Drones. UAVs. UASs. UCAVs.)
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog? (You, Dear Reader)
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished? (Some pretty dang impressive calluses on my fingertips, and about zero subscribers, lol)

You’re not locked into any of this (whew!); one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas. (Cool. I’ll look back on this someday with…pride? Amusement? I guess we’ll find out…)

Can’t think how to get started? (oh, yes, I can) Just write the first thing that pops into your head. (okay…drones) Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. (okay, I can do that…) Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later. (yeah, but she doesn’t have to read my mostly extemporaneous posts)

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. (drones?) These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader (I suck at that part). Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too (done!)

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started