# Flying drones



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Question , do you think flying these so called drones in a anchorage or a marina is cool or uncool . I'll go first, UNCOOL !
And here is why I think that , they are not quite they make a angry hornet swarm buzz noise . Second in most cases they have a camera on board .
So I say invasion of peace and privacy. IMO they should be flown at a Remote Control air field .


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Saw someone doing this last summer.. at first I thought it was pretty cool. There have been SNers that posted some neat videos they took of their anchorage and their boat with these things.. that's pretty neat too.

BUT- you're right, it's potentially an incredible annoyance and certainly a potential invasion of privacy. If this gets out of hand it will rival jetskis - but at least there's no wake/wash from them.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Depends on how they're used. Kept at reasonable altitude and/or only close to your own boat... Cool. Flown all around the anchorage, low enough to photograph and annoy others... Uncool.


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

They could have protective rings around the 
rotor blades...but they don't. I don't want to
be around when one gets out of control and 
comes down and slices someone up.

It'll happen.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Uncool???


Are you kidding? You just don't know how to use them properly!

We all have drones and at sundowners instead of you comming to my boat and mess my cockpit up, I fly a beer over to your boat, you fly a beer over to my boat, both our drones hovver with cameras on, and we both WIFI or Bluetooth the vision onto our Smart Phones so we can see each other!


Fantastic! The BEST bit is theres no audio so I don't have to listen to anyone!!

Last week we went for a Drone Pot Luck on a deserted beach. We all stayed on our own boats 


Mark


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Uncool???
> 
> Are you kidding? You just don't know how to use them properly!
> 
> ...


 (Insert audio file of swarming killer bees here )


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

You can probably take them out with a good pellet rifle. Aim for the blades. Quiet and discreet.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

krisscross said:


> You can probably take them out with a good pellet rifle. Aim for the blades. Quiet and discreet.


Aw, geez.... don't turn this into a gun thread


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Faster said:


> Aw, geez.... don't turn this into a gun thread


OK, bow and arrow?


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Slingshot.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Markwesti said:


> Question , do you think flying these so called drones in a anchorage or a marina is cool or uncool . I'll go first, UNCOOL !
> And here is why I think that , they are not quite they make a angry hornet swarm buzz noise . Second in most cases they have a camera on board .
> So I say invasion of peace and privacy. IMO they should be flown at a Remote Control air field .


Sounds that you are in an interesting marina.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

krisscross said:


> You can probably take them out with a good pellet rifle. Aim for the blades. Quiet and discreet.


Thought about that but I'm a lousy shot and that pellet has to come down somewhere . Back in the day when my dad and I were flying RC airplanes at a RC airfield there was a guy once who hid in his car with a CB radio, he could key the mic and interfere with the guy flying his model airplane . He got busted and some guys beat the stuffing out of him . I was about 10yrs.old at the time and it left quite a impression on me . Pay backs are a ***** .


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Markwesti said:


> Pay backs are a ***** .


I would think that shooting down a drone (winging it?) would be a payback for annoying the crap out of peace loving folks living on their boats. That high pitch engine whine has to be one of the most annoying sounds out there. If it is just a mere passing drone, it can and should be tolerated. But a prolonged session in my vicinity would get them a pest-control type of response.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Markwesti said:


> Question , do you think flying these so called drones in a anchorage or a marina is cool or uncool.


Depends on whether they are flying a pirate flag. If so, they are lame.


----------



## L.A. Sail (Mar 13, 2015)

They make great target practice


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

Re: Invasion of privacy&#8230;.I can get far better photos of you from my boat with a long lens than I can from my drone. You have no expectation of privacy when in a public area. It's legal to take your picture, or a picture of your boat as long as I don't use the image of the person commercially without a release.

As for noise, for the smaller ones such as the DJI Phantom the noise isn't that noticeable unless close. Probably no more so than the music from your cockpit speakers.

I have a drone that I have used in an anchorage. As with everything I do in life I respect others privacy and strive not to offend. Unfortunetly not everyone adheres to that rule when flying a drone, operating their outboard dinghy, playing music or just about any other activity you want to list.

I much more afraid of the "skipper" that can't control his boat than I am of an "out of control" drone.

A couple examples of drone use: Here  and  here.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

Better than jet ski's zooming around you. Is it politically correct to ....nah, never mind


----------



## timangiel (Sep 8, 2006)

I think it would be cool to get Arial pics of my boat, and it might be a useful tool for inspecting the top of your mast. If I were relaxing on my boat I would not want to see one just show up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

It's 15 minutes of flight time, right? As long as you aren't endangered, or it's an intrusive government cataloging your image for perpetual cross-referencing to be used against you, who cares?

Wave hello and go back to your sundowner.

Now if it's a power boater flying them, that's different. 

Regards,
Brad


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

Privacy? You park your boat in a an anchorage, I dont think you should have any expectation of privacy. Heck, there's always the guy that has his binoculars scanning the anchorage looking for *ahem* exhibitionists. 

My thoughts...its a public space, so anything thats allowed in a park is fair game in the water/anchorage. Different story if it is a private anchorage/marina...private property, private rules. Besides, its way better/easer to deal with a drone than those stupid jetskis or jetpacks that are running through my S Florida anchorages!


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

As cool as generators.


----------



## Erindipity (Nov 29, 2014)

From Wikipedia on the subject of Drones:
"Mating occurs in flight, which accounts for the need of the drones for better vision, which is provided by their large eyes. Should a drone succeed in mating he soon dies because the penis and associated abdominal tissues are ripped from the drone's body after sexual intercourse."

Simply send up a reasonably attractive Female, and the offending Drone will Drone-Bone itself to death.

Also, from the same page:
"Since the queen mates with 12±7 drones, and drones die post-mating, each drone must make the most of his single shot."

A single Female can thus be shared among cooperative Sailors for the Season.
Unfortunately:
"The drones have two reproductive functions. They convert and extend the queen's single unfertilized egg into about 10 million genetically identical male sperm cells."

So the _next_ Season may end up being somewhat noisier.

¬Erindipity


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Flying a drone inside range of our cockpit, during sundowners, when my judgement is already compromised, is bad for your drone's health.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I don't any problem with drones, as long as they are used with respect for others in mind. Unfortunately, having respect for others seems to be a dying part of the North American genome. The attitude mostly seems to be: "It my _right_ to do whatever I want with my property or in a public place... and to hell with anyone else."

Sadly, too many people have forgotten that rights come with responsibilities.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

A few casts with my ugly stick armed with a treble hook should bring the dastard down.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> A few casts with my ugly stick armed with a treble hook should bring the dastard down.


*Drone on!*


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

I can't type the word "uncool" large enough or emphatically enough to express my opinion on this subject. My wife and I were on a fairly secluded beach a year or two ago, and on this beach the "beach attire requirements" were very lax. 'nuff said. Some obnoxious 20-something brought his drone down to the beach, and started flying it out over the water. Of course, he drew a small cadre of other interested barely-adults. Up until then, it was annoying but I figured he had as much right to be there as any one else so I just went back to enjoying the beach, the sun, and the beer. After a while, though, it became apparent that he had turned the drone to face the beach from out over the water, and he was flying up and down the beach zooming in on all of us as we relaxed.. to various expressions of delight and derision from his followers, depending upon the currently-zoomed subject. Great. Nice. 

The issue of privacy in a public place is much, MUCH different than it was 20 years ago. I've contacted Google about the infringement of privacy because they publish very clear shots of my house (and pretty much everyone else's, these days), both from the street and from the air on Google Earth. Their response is along the lines of "we don't publish anything that anyone couldn't see if they just walked down your road." Yeah, well, bucko... 7 billion people don't walk past my house every day, and they certainly don't fly over it at an apparent height of a few hundred feet. I've always lived in the "boonies" because I LIKE to live my life privately. Publishing my home, my car, and an overhead view of my deck and backyard for the entire GLOBE to see whenever they wish without my permission is just sick. They eventually agreed to blur out my property... but they keep "unblurring" it every year or so and so I have to keep going through the same song and dance with them. 

Now.. to bring this back to zooming a drone around in a marina. While I'm on it, my boat is my house. My property. Yes, those in the marina can see me on it. Yes, I'm glad to see them; we wave, smile, talk, visit, and just in general enjoy each other's company... WHEN INVITED TO. However, none of the folks have the ability to levitate themselves directly over my boat for a birdseye view. Just because the technology to do so remotely is now available and cheap, why in the world would any one thing it is OK to do so? YES, there IS an expectation of privacy. It's my @#$# house, at least for the time I'm there. Even worse, the ease with which the drone pilot can publish any "fun" shots he may get of my wife changing aboard makes the whole thing even more aggravating.

OK.. those who disagree.. I can hear you saying... "Well, stupid, don't change in public view... be discrete on your boat." We ARE, dangit. We aren't exhibitionists, and would never do anything to offend someone. HOWEVER, scanning the flippin' SKIES through an open hatch ain't in our "pre-getting-dressed" checklist. 

Another point.. just because one person wants to fly a drone, then the REST of us are supposed to change our habits? BS.

Another different but related topic. Ever notice that when you're around a bunch of people and one of them answers their cell phone and begins a conversation, everyone ELSE starts talking softer so as not to interfere with that person's conversation? MADNESS!! Remember when, if you wanted to make a call, you went into something called a "phone booth" so you wouldn't interfere with everyone ELSE'S conversations, and so your private conversation would remain PRIVATE? Now, the world is your phone booth, and the rest of us should adapt. BS.

**....rant off.. but I'm not sure for how long.....}

I've kind of had it with the new "ME" attitude of a great deal of society. The very fact that "selfie" is a word says it all. 

Ooops... guess the rant wasn't over yet... sorry.

Back to more enjoyable topics. 

Best to all. Do nice things FOR others. When you're someplace, BE there, not on your phone texting to people who aren't there. Stop taking posed pictures of yourself to portray yourself how you wish others to think of you; if you really care, BE the person you want others to view you as, instead of APPEARING to be that person. Remember, other people aren't around you for your amusement, so stop filming them, unless you get their permission first. Who cares whether or not it's legal? Asking permission first is the NICE, polite thing to do. It's legal to walk up to somebody you don't know and tell them that you heard that their mother is a fat miserable slob, too, but why in the world would you do that?!?!? 

Hmmm.. sorry... a little more rant just dribbled out. Guess I've got diarrhea of the fingers..

As you were..

Barry


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

bblument said:


> I can't type the word "uncool" large enough or emphatically enough to express my opinion on this subject...


Nice rant, Barry, I'm in pretty much complete agreement...

I foresee these things becoming a major irritant in the future... There's already enough concern in the megayacht community over their potential use, for one of the magazines like SHOWBOATS INTERNATIONAL do have done a feature over the security and privacy issues they can pose... Not hard to imagine, for example, the paparrazzi putting them to use in a place like St Barts, in an effort to grab some 'Exclusive' view of the sundeck on the 250-footer that Beyonce & Jay-Z have chartered for the holiday 

It's one thing for a guy like Drake on PARAGON to employ them to capture images of icebergs off the coast of Greenland, but when folks start flying them over the hundreds of boats gathered in Great Salt Pond on the 4th of July weekend, it's just a matter of time before something goes awry, and some innocent party gets hurt... Last fall during the Newport Boat Show weekend, I had one pass overhead way too close for comfort as I was headed into shore on my dinghy, absolutely boggles the mind some clown was flying one around at such an altitude, in such a crowded setting... Hell, we've already seen an example of Droning While Drunk, when some idiot crashed his onto the grounds of the White House not too long ago... But, yeah, such a thing could _never_ happen at a Labor Day gathering of hundreds of boaters at a place like Block Island, right? 

Certainly, they don't represent the End of Western Civilization, by any means  Just one more annoyance to add to the rapidly growing list of reasons to avoid the company of other groups of boaters, as opposed to seeking it out...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

tiny little toy drones flying around the mooring field spying on me

OK by me. If whoever is looking is man enough to handle the pictures I'm man enough to let them. I have more important things to be concerned about.

BTW - I believe there already is case law that says drones flying around filming you is not an invasion of privacy. Also I don't believe there really is any "right to privacy" outside of your home.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

In response to the .merican govt’s request to Canada for assistance , the Canadian Fish and Game Dept. has joined forces with Raytheon and pay pal to offer hunting expeditions from bases in Kurdistan After years of counting grizzly bears with cameras mounted on drones, the newly armed drones will be operated in real time by any gamers with a pay pal account and a game boy via the inter net. Scores will be displayed on the soon to be developed home page. Rates have yet to be published but interest is said to be high and should allow for profits to go to future research and development of this exciting new concept of reality adventure . Some third world queries have already been received as world petroleum prices plummet, leaving their cash strapped military with reduced body counts


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Don0190 said:


> tiny little toy drones flying around the mooring field spying on me
> 
> OK by me. If whoever is looking is man enough to handle the pictures I'm man enough to let them. I have more important things to be concerned about.


Don, I understand your sentiments, which, if I may be permitted to summarize them, pretty much boil down to "what's the big deal?" I'm glad you're OK with being observed and don't mind, and I have no problem with that. Would you feel the same way if someone was filming your wife or your daughter or son?



Don0190 said:


> BTW - I believe there already is case law that says drones flying around filming you is not an invasion of privacy. Also I don't believe there really is any "right to privacy" outside of your home.


Like I said, it's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of courtesy. I like to think I conduct myself in a manner that does my family proud, whether I'm in public or not, and whether or not I'm being observed. When in public, people see my actions and hear my words in context, AND I have the opportunity to debate, explain, further elucidate, or rectify anything I may have said or done in front of the people present if I've inadvertently offended someone. If someone films me in public, they can edit, truncate, or manipulate the video any way they wish, then immediately publish it for anyone who has access to the internet, AND frame it any way they wish to portray my actions as they wish through their own "lens" to advance THEIR agenda, regardless of whether it was my original intent or not. That gets ugly VERY fast. A legal invasion of privacy? No. Unethical, rude, self-serving, disrespectful, thoughtless, anti-social, and juvenile? Absolutely.

I grant you, in the vast majority of situations, no ill effects will arise from an innocent overhead video from a friendly neighborhood drone getting some aerial shots of a marina for the drone pilot's private enjoyment. I've taken pictures of me and my family hiking backcountry trails, waterfalls, attending outdoor concerts, parks, etc., and in the process have taken pictures of many strangers who appear in the background of those pictures without getting their permission. Those pictures are in our photo album (an actual book, not a folder on my computer), not published for the globe to see. Now, when we make new friends on vacations or when traveling, I ALWAYS ask permission prior to taking a picture, simply because times have changed.

And yes, I am a conscientious Facebook/LinkedIn/Instaspam/Twitter/NextGreatestThing abstainer. I bear no malice to the folks that love and use those tools, and I'm glad that the people that love those methods of communication have them available. Me, I like to talk to people face-to-face best, followed by phone calls, with email a convenient, usable but distant third.

Do no harm, live as you wish, and let others live as they wish.. that's pretty much it. Wouldn't it be nice to find out if someone wanted to be filmed prior to doing so? That's all... I'm not trying to make a federal case out of it.

Best to all,

Barry


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> tiny little toy drones flying around the mooring field spying on me
> 
> OK by me...


Well, I suppose many folks today won't even notice them above the White Noise of their portable generators, anyway...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

bblument said:


> I'm glad you're OK with being observed and don't mind, and I have no problem with that. Would you feel the same way if someone was filming your wife or your daughter or son?


Sure, I let my wife, daughter, and son go outside in public all the time! What are yours doing if you are concerned about them being filmed?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I suppose many folks today won't even notice them above the White Noise of their portable generators, anyway...


Wouldn't know, but probably also wouldn't notice them above the sound the god darn banging halyards!


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

Don0190 said:


> Sure, I let my wife, daughter, and son go outside in public all the time! What are yours doing if you are concerned about them being filmed?


lol... nothing, and I do get your point, Don. My point is that being on our boat, especially changing clothes below, is NOT being out in public. I would be most upset if a drone filmed them. AND... kids don't need to be "doing" anything for some sicko to stalk them. I don't want my family published on the internet without their knowledge and consent, AND without mine if they're minors.

Backatcha,

Barry


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

bblument said:


> lol... nothing, and I do get your point, Don. My point is that being on our boat, especially changing clothes below, is NOT being out in public. I would be most upset if a drone filmed them.


Well I would be upset if the drones started flying INSIDE my boat/house. That's not out in public. But if you change clothes inside and don't close the curtains it isn't the fault of the person watching.


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Just why cannot these things have proper guards
on the propellers?

See:


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

This was the point I tried to make earlier. We have the _right_ to fly drones in public spaces and take pictures of whomever happens to be there, but we have the _responsibility_ not to do so if it would negatively impact others.

I may have the right to use my high-powered lens to take a picture of a neighbour through their open window, but I have the responsibility to respect their privacy even if they happen to leave their curtains open. I have the right to crank my cockpit stereo, but I have the responsibility to keep the levels down to a reasonable level. I have the right to leave my halyards untied, but I have a responsibility to secure them so as to not annoy everyone else in the vicinity. Etc...

When we can't behave like adults, and treat each other with basic respect, this is when the state must intervene with blunt and arbitrary laws. Rights come with responsibilities. We seem to have forgotten this these days.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

A Benjamin Franklin quote comes to mind, but I wouldn't peach it.


----------



## danvon (Dec 10, 2012)

They used to have this ridiculous gadget on Wild Kingdom that used rockets to shoot a net over the lion or jaguar or whatever they were trying to capture. I've always wondered about real-world uses. Maybe this is it.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

I think Shep likes drones, FAA not so much . Sorry, if you want to watch this vid you have to wait through a 30 sec commercial. This is kind of ironic because the only thing the FAA is jacked up about is your drone vid with a pop up commercial.
FAA: Stop posting videos you take with your drones | On Air Videos | Fox News


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

Eventually, and probably soon, predatory drones--or anti-drone drones will be available. They'll ram or otherwise disable smaller, invasive or troublesome drones. Maybe even snare them somehow and confiscate them.
Of course, then will come the anti-drone-drone-drones, that will protect the first little bastards. It will escalate from there, perhaps to manned aircraft.
The ensuing rain of drone pieces will become a major pollution concern. Fish and wildlive will choke on tiny parts blasted from the sky and die in mass extinctions. People will be forced to wear drone helmets, to protect themselves from errant parts of drones that fall from the sky.
Liberal governments will require, and subsidize, universal insurance against drone-related injury. Conservatives will oppose this as they will own the hospitals that don't want to have to negotiate their prices with insurance companies.
All this could be just the start. Before long, it could really get complicated.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Actually I just thought of a good use for one of these little RC helios . See there is this Sea Hawk that sits on my neighbors mast head and shoots his business on my boat . We could fly that drone and take some video of the freekin' thing destroying my boat . Then we could post the vid on social media , the Hawk would be humiliated , he would fly to Seattle and seek psychiatric therapy and my problems would be over . Yeah I know at least someone gives a shi* about me .


----------



## Azzarac (Sep 30, 2011)

Just FYI, 99.7% (yeah, I made that stat up, but it's close enough) of RC quad copters (the military flies drones, not sure how quads ever got that name) fly with fixed lens cameras such as the gopro, not "zoom" lens. Those copters capable of lifting a telephoto camera will usually have eight motors and weigh in excess of 55 lbs. These are incredibly expensive and usually reserved for commercial use. With quads (4 rotors), every gram of weight counts. This is also the reason most people remove the blade guards once they become experienced pilots. The 2-3 grams of weight affect flight behavior and flight time. In case you haven't guessed by now, yep, I own one. It's an inexpensive, no frills, "toy" with a HD camera pre-installed. I've shot some interesting footage around the house but haven't had the courage to send it out over the water even though I'd love to get shots under sail. I have absolutely no interest in what anyone else may be doing on their own boat or the beach. It's simply not my business. BTW, folks have been mounting cameras to kites since 1887 so this is really nothing new. It is simply a more modern way of doing something old. Some people just find aerial photography interesting.


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> See there is this Sea Hawk that sits on my neighbors mast head and shoots his business on my boat . We could fly that drone and take some video of the freekin' thing destroying my boat .


So what you're saying is, you want to secretly videotape a sea hawk's nether regions while it's performing private bodily functions. Then you want to post what amounts to revenge porn for people with birds' a** fetishes. You know there's laws about that stuff now, right? You're the one that will end up being publicly shamed on some network news website. Just shoot it.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Oh man , I new this would backfire on me , that shtin* bird probably has a lawyer too .


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

_mounting cameras to kites _

Not the same. I can stay out of the circle defined
by the radius of the kite string and not be subject
to destructive spinning propellers. When a quad
gets out of control it can do much bodily damage.
Google "quad propeller injury."

Put a protective ring around the propeller. Stop
with the 'saving every gram of weight'.


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

jongleur said:


> Just why cannot these things have proper guards
> on the propellers?
> 
> See:


The guards are to protect the props, not to protect a bystander. The idea is to prevent a prop strike when flying in close proximity to objects to prevent the prop from being damaged rendering the copter unflyable.

If you're hit by one in flight a lac from the prop will be the lesser of your injuries.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Aircraft have rules over how far way from persons or property they must fly, which differ from congested to non-congested areas. It should equally apply to quads/drones, including taking off and landing. It's a personal safety issue. Perhaps they'll be safe enough for Amazon to deliver to your front door one day, but I really think that's just a marketing gimmick to get PR attention, every time the topic comes up. Smart, I just did it for them again.

There should also be self-defense standards that permit destructive force used within those limits. For example, if I can ever reach your quad with a sling shot, you're too close. Therefore, if I hit it, I'm presumptively innocent.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Azzarac said:


> In case you haven't guessed by now, yep, I own one.


Is it just me or does your avatar look like a drone (quadcopter). 

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> For example, if I can ever reach your quad with a sling shot, you're too close. Therefore, if I hit it, I'm presumptively innocent.











The Slingshot Channel's Official Website


----------



## Azzarac (Sep 30, 2011)

> Is it just me or does your avatar look like a drone (quadcopter).
> 
> MedSailor


LOL I can see the resemblance now that you point it out... It is actually designed to represent the 26X boat.


----------



## Livia (Jul 20, 2006)

If they offer you aerial pictures or video of your boat floating in paradise...COOL!


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

Livia said:


> If they offer you aerial pictures or video of your boat floating in paradise...COOL!


Meet me in Aialik Bay in June and it's a done deal!


----------



## Livia (Jul 20, 2006)

sailak said:


> Meet me in Aialik Bay in June and it's a done deal!


 We got some great video given to us of our boat and us kiting in Tonga from a dJI Phantom. We used the footage in a video.






and here are two stills:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-l6-L8X1cl9c/VBpWwN8AmhI/AAAAAAAAGg8/e6kzW07Bvvc/s1600-h/estrellita-34.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-8SEKgbZCcOI/V...ABrimHbZnI/s1600-h/team-giddup-kenutu-112.jpg


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

Great video Livia.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Stop with calling them drones, it sounds like Fox News here. The drones, that we have to be worried about are run by the government and can carry lethal payloads. What is being discussed here is nothing more than toys. I don't understand all the hype. They can't take pictures of you inside your boat, or anything else troublesome. They are simply a remote controlled toy that can carry a small camera, like a go pro. Don't blow this up into more than it is. Sure put limitations near airports, that makes sense as they can fly fairly high. But to worry about a kid (or an adult) playing with there toy while in an anchorage, come on there are way more important things to worry about. Heck they have a very short battery life, so they won't likely be up there very long. And they are really not that noisy anyway. The video they produce can be stunning, and can show boats sailing like nothing else. So It does have a legitimate use.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

miatapaul said:


> Stop with calling them drones, it sounds like Fox News here.


Who's the uneducated here? Look up the definition of drone. Fox News would. Quad copters are drones.

3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers



> .....Don't blow this up into more than it is.......


It is...... an invasion of privacy, not unlike the NSA taping your phone. I suspect you had a problem with that.

It is...... dangerous to be near. I've seen several of these drones become uncontrolled and crash into things. I prefer that not be me or my family aboard my boat.

Therefore, fly near me, within striking distance, and your drone will not make it back to base.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> Who's the uneducated here? Look up the definition of drone. Fox News would. Quad copters are drones.
> 
> 3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers
> 
> ...


What we are talking about here are quadracopters being flown around an anchorage, they are TOYS they have short fly times and cannot invade your privacy. You are in a public anchorage, so you have no expectation of privacy. They cannot see into the cabin, they don't have X-ray vision, they can see no more than what you could see with a a pair of binoculars, or telephoto lens. I have heard of users getting some cut fingers while doing stupid stuff while on the ground, but beyond that I have never heard of any bystanders being hurt or hit by one.

And all this talk of them being drones is simply a scare tactic. Sure they may fit the "definition" but they are not at all dangerous. So are you saying that no one should be allowed to use a remote controlled sailboat in an anchorage? They after all could carry a camera and "invade your privacy" just as much and meet the definition. So we better ban them too. What I don't understand is it is the same ones who are upset about the "drones" that claim they want limited government and no regulation.

This is nothing like NSA tapping my phone, on the phone one has a legal right to expect privacy. Now if I am in a public park and am speaking out loud to a group, then I have no issue with anyone taping me as long as it is not used for commercial gain as I have no expectation of privacy.

There is a difference between a toy used in a public place and a real payload carrying commercial device. These are not evil weaponized scary things, they are toys that you can get some amazing photos from. Now if the device is used in a way that it endangers people that is completely separate. Just as we will not ban all cars to preserve the safety of pedestrians, we ban the use on sidewalks and driving recklessly.

So there is only one reason to call a hobbyist quadracopter a drone to be dramatic. They are not dangerous, they cannot invade your privacy. We do not need more regulation. And if you shoot down my drone I would expect a check to pay for the damage.


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Drone is 5 letters, quadracopter is 12. I'll use drone.

Why can't they all have propeller guards?

Toys? $3,000 worth? Read The Wanderer's report 
of losing his "toy" while trying to capture pix of a
sailboat race in the Carib. in Lat 38. I failed to find
the article in a search of L38. But I vaguely 
remember he had a bit of concern that it might 
have come down and hurt someone.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

jongleur said:


> Drone is 5 letters, quadracopter is 12. I'll use drone.
> 
> Why can't they all have propeller guards?
> 
> ...


Interesting, I emailed the Wanderer right before starting this thread . My email went something like , hey Richard I thought I knew you . Flying a drone in paradise ? I said that because he is always going on about tread lightly try not to invade other peoples space . He emailed me back acting like he didn't know what I was talking about and I should explain myself . So I did , more like my OP. He never emailed me back . Don't get me wrong , I respect Richard . I refer to him as the voice of reason , sometimes . In the last issue of 38, the cover is of Richard flying his drone in a crowded anchorage . In a article same issue, Richard wrote about himself Zen sailing , no motor at one with the boat and the sea peace and quite . Can you have it both ways ? Apparently the Grand Pooh- Bah can .


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> Stop with calling them drones, it sounds like Fox News here. The drones, that we have to be worried about are run by the government and can carry lethal payloads. What is being discussed here is nothing more than toys. I don't understand all the hype. They can't take pictures of you inside your boat, or anything else troublesome. They are simply a remote controlled toy that can carry a small camera, like a go pro.


I see two problems with that argument. First, changing the word for something in order to alter its meaning is an old cognitive slight-of-hand that really doesn't work. In common usage, 'drone' seems to be the word for the object we're talking about. Cajoling people to call it something different doesn't make it something different.
Second, most people's expectation of privacy is that, if we're not visible from someone standing on the ground, or on the floor of a building, we have privacy. We don't expect to be photographed from airplanes--they're too high. The concept of a "privacy fence" is universal. If you create such a sight barrier around your backyard pool and your family is behind it, you and they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I'm invading their privacy if I peek through a knot hole. In a marina, I'd expect a certain level of privacy behind a lee cloth, or below the cockpit coaming, or in a cabin on a mooring with the hatches open, or if I've anchored far from other boats. Sure, it may not be the most securely private spot on earth, but I don't think you'd expect me to pull up with a deep-sea fisherman to take photos from the top of the scaffold (or whatever you call that thing). Using a low-flying device to take pictures of others from above, where you couldn't do it from below, is an invasion of their reasonable expectation of privacy. New technology doesn't vacate old standards.
And I sympathize with others who feel it's reasonable to defend their "private" airspace with projectiles, regardless of the owner's word for the offending toy. After all, if you're going to make up new rules for what you can do with your whatever-you-call-it, I can make up new rules for how I defend my privacy.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Good one Mr. J . Reminds of the saying . Have a nice day , before someone screws it up .


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

miatapaul said:


> What we are talking about here are quadracopters being flown around an anchorage, they are TOYS they have short fly times and cannot invade your privacy.


Again, the issue is with how each of us defines an "invasion of privacy." I'm not talking about a legal definition, I'm talking about a respectful-to-your-fellow-human definition. I consider taking a video of my boat, my wife in a bikini, or my kids from a vantage point that can only be viewed from the air without my permission or prior consent to be rude and an invasion of my privacy, ESPECIALLY if that video is published on the internet for indiscriminate global consumption.



miatapaul said:


> You are in a public anchorage, so you have no expectation of privacy. They cannot see into the cabin, they don't have X-ray vision, they can see no more than what you could see with a a pair of binoculars, or telephoto lens.


They can see into the cabin through an open or clear hatch just fine. Of course they can't see through opaque surfaces; no one suggested they could. I would also take the same offense to someone getting their jollies peering at my family through binoculars or snapping pictures with a telephoto lens. Your comparison is apt. If you're OK with someone snapping pics of you or your family w/ a telephoto lens, and potentially publishing them, then we disagree there, too. So be it.



miatapaul said:


> I have heard of users getting some cut fingers while doing stupid stuff while on the ground, but beyond that I have never heard of any bystanders being hurt or hit by one.


I don't know if you're familiar with the AMA .. the "Academy of Model Aeronautics." They set VERY stringent guidelines for how and where pilots should and shouldn't fly remotely controlled model aircraft. Some model aircraft are more dangerous than others, but ALL are dangerous when flown irresponsibly. They take their guidelines very seriously, mostly because folks can and DO get injured, some grievously, every year.



miatapaul said:


> And all this talk of them being drones is simply a scare tactic. Sure they may fit the "definition" but they are not at all dangerous. So are you saying that no one should be allowed to use a remote controlled sailboat in an anchorage? They after all could carry a camera and "invade your privacy" just as much and meet the definition. So we better ban them too.


That would be one pretty fancy remote controlled model sailboat. Loaded with a camera, it could get some good closeups of my topsides.. that's about it... unless it was some James Bond-style sailboat that could also fly. No, I'm not suggesting that model sailboats be banned, nor is anyone else. They are silent, non-intrusive, and fun to watch fall over.



miatapaul said:


> What I don't understand is it is the same ones who are upset about the "drones" that claim they want limited government and no regulation.
> 
> This is nothing like NSA tapping my phone, on the phone one has a legal right to expect privacy. Now if I am in a public park and am speaking out loud to a group, then I have no issue with anyone taping me as long as it is not used for commercial gain as I have no expectation of privacy.


We have big areas of agreement here. If you are in a public park speaking loudly, then you are doing so usually with the intent to attract attention. If you're speaking out publicly about an issue, then usually being taped and broadcast on the internet would actually be helpful to you, and desired. This is a far cry from someone enjoying quiet time on their boat. Again, it's a matter of respect and gentility. When my wife and I are on our boat sunning, we are certainly not doing so with the hopes of getting filmed and published on the internet. I don't wish for further government regulation... just further human kindness and respect.



miatapaul said:


> There is a difference between a toy used in a public place and a real payload carrying commercial device. These are not evil weaponized scary things, they are toys that you can get some amazing photos from. Now if the device is used in a way that it endangers people that is completely separate. Just as we will not ban all cars to preserve the safety of pedestrians, we ban the use on sidewalks and driving recklessly.
> 
> So there is only one reason to call a hobbyist quadracopter a drone to be dramatic. They are not dangerous, they cannot invade your privacy. We do not need more regulation. And if you shoot down my drone I would expect a check to pay for the damage.


I think calling a "hobbyist quadracopter" a "toy" is as fallacious as calling it a "drone," perhaps more so. I fly radio controlled airplanes and helicopters, but only at my home and at AMA-approved fields. The other members of the club certainly don't consider their carefully crafted, $1000 and up crafts to be toys. Characterizing a "hobbyist quadracopter" as a "toy" to help minimize their potential danger and downplay their potential use as spycams spins the issue as much if not more as using the word "drone." If anything, "drone" is much more accurate.

Prior to shooting down a drone, I'd personally talk to the pilot first and politely request they stop flying around me. After that, well... we'll see how that goes!

Best to you,

Barry


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

My point is the term drones has connotations of weaponized military planes and just causes people to get hysterical about them. If you watch any of the news programs they call them drones and make it sound like they are going to cause armageddon in typical over dramatic fashion. When people hear drones they think Afghanistan, bombs military action, not a DJI Phantom. So the word used is important. Yes, they are toys, sure expensive toys but meant purely for fun and possibly some light commercial photography or sharing video. And most of my friends who fly remote controlled planes do call them toys, expensive grown up toys. When they crash there 4-5,000 planes it is like well that is part of the fun. All this drone talk is just a bunch of hype. 

Yes there are obviously commonsense rules that you don't buzz people you don't get close enough to put them in danger. That all goes without saying. The chances of a quad going out of control (And the newer ones have controls that will return to where they took off from or will just hover where they are if they loose radio control) and hitting somone are really slim. Far more likely to have lightning strike. 

And if you can see in your hatches from a few hundred feet away you must have the clearest hatches ever made. Heck standing on top of most you can't see anything identifiable through them. And it is not comparable to a private property with a privacy fence, we are talking about out in public with no privacy fence. And yes I would never allow anyone on a boat of mine do anything on deck that I would be embarrassed to have seen. So I have no issue with it. If you don't want anyone to see your family perhaps having them sit out in public is not the best thing. A cave might work. I just don't see the big deal. And I am not some young kid who has grown up with no expectation of privacy. 

As stated they make a lot of noise so they are not going to be used as a "spy cam" so that is really silly. The noise is really the biggest argument against them but hey they have short fly times so it is not long, I don't see it as bothersome to someone. It is not like it is a generator going on all night to keep the air conditioning going. 

I just think there are a lot of more important things to be upset about than someone playing with there toy. I have been playing with RC since the mid 1970's.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

No need for regulation, just a safe harbor that if I can reach your drone with a slingshot, I am immune from the liability of hitting it, given its obvious proximity. Whether you want to try and whether I want to shoot it down will be strictly between us. 

I like that approach. That means we don't need no stinking govt bureaucracy to sort it out. The pilot may just want to ask if it's okay to fly around me first. Sounds like the decent thing to do anyway.


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

miatapaul said:


> As stated they make a lot of noise so they are not going to be used as a "spy cam" so that is really silly. The noise is really the biggest argument against them but hey they have short fly times so it is not long, I don't see it as bothersome to someone. It is not like it is a generator going on all night to keep the air conditioning going.
> 
> I just think there are a lot of more important things to be upset about than someone playing with there toy. I have been playing with RC since the mid 1970's.


Paul,

Thanks for replying. I agree with your last statement above; compared to some of the other issues humanity currently confronts, the issues surrounding flying toy/hobbyist-quadracopter/drone usage pale in comparison.

I disagree with your first point, though. My wife and I have already been the "victim" of a drone being used as a spycam. It does happen, it's offensive, it's rude, and there ARE operators who use them lasciviously. That's a fact. If someone is flying them over other people's boats in an anchorage or a marina, then there is precious little explanation for such behavior other than "spycam," voyeurist motivations. Fly over your property and your space.. no problem. Fly over my space.. well... that's a problem.

I get where you're coming from, but I hope that makes some sense to you, too. Yes?

Barry


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I was trying to read these threads, but then a drone buzzed outside my window and I had a sudden impulse to run to the window and drop drawers and shake my willie.

It suddenly blew up. That is how you take care of this "problem".


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

How about in international symbol for "OK to come closer". So someone pauses their drone 50 feet away, waits for you to wave it in, then takes pictures of whatever in your vicinity.

If you slingshot down the drone, the operator can use the video of you waving the drone in, against you in court. If there's no wave-in then you are free to shoot.

Regards,
Brad


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> As stated they make a lot of noise so they are not going to be used as a "spy cam" so that is really silly. The noise is really the biggest argument against them





> And they are really not that noisy anyway.


Is the noise a kind of droning sound?
Come on, Paul, you ol' drone salesman, you.
They're called drones. That's not hysteria. It's English. Cessnas with photography buffs on board, Lear Jets with 1%-ers taking the family to Saratoga for the horse races and F-16's with heat-seeking missiles and gatling guns are all called 'airplanes' by calm, level-headed folks.
Drones are loud, intrusive and potentially harmful to the people and property below them. Sounds like they do provide opportunities for stunning photographs for those with 4 or 5 K to blow, but it sure sounds like that isn't the only cost.
Like any new technology, there are negative unintended consequences along with positive ones, and there's no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
And if your friends who own them (or to whom you sold them?) think a $5K toy blowing itself up is "part of the fun", what I can do with a 12 ga and birdshot should have'em rolling in the aisles.
JV


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Bene505 said:


> How about in international symbol for "OK to come closer". So someone pauses their drone 50 feet away, waits for you to wave it in, then takes pictures of whatever in your vicinity.
> 
> If you slingshot down the drone, the operator can use the video of you waving the drone in, against you in court. If there's no wave-in then you are free to shoot.
> 
> ...


This sounds good . But if you miss ? Here is what I did one time, a drone was buzzing around our boat around 6 in the evening . I knew the flyers were in the parking lot , so being 3 sheets to the wind, and against Ms. Westies pleading to stay put , I couldn't control my anger I went up to the lot and I found them , there were two of them , one flying and one operating the cam . I yelled at them to get the thing out of here . Much to my amazement they did. .


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

_"...chances of...hitting som[e]one are really slim." _

But not zero. So, put a propeller guard on the stupid thing.

_"...there are a lot of more important things to be upset about..."_

You can use that argument on just about every topic
on this website. What's your point?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

A google search of "youtube drone crash" and you get a whole bunch of quadcopter crash videos. Several hit people and property. 

Then try "drone crash injury" and get pages of those stories too.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Listening to my morning radio show and what do I hear? A story about how Ontario is considering a new law to ban people from using drones (yes "drones") to harass hunters.

Hunter harrassment Bill C-655 to protect hunters, angler and trappers - Thunder Bay - CBC News

Drones _can_ be used appropriately and with respect for others. However, they are all too easy to be used in a way that is annoying, disrespectful, and that infringe on other people's rights. People may have the _right_ to fly these things in public spaces like anchorages, but they also have the _responsibility_ to do so in a way that doesn't impinge on other people's rights.

As I predicted earlier:



> When we can't behave like adults, and treat each other with basic respect, this is when the state must intervene with blunt and arbitrary laws. Rights come with responsibilities. We seem to have forgotten this these days.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)




----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Excellent. Let the drone pilots keep the FAA busy. If for one moment they think it will be a challenge of logic and wit, theyll be unpleasantly surprised. Rules are strict.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

I haven't read every long winded response, so if I repeat anything, sorry. I fly my drone everywhere. It's big (13" rotors). If it's below 100', it's fairly loud. I use it for taking pictures and video. Here's my response to those who want to hurl something at my drone to knock it down:
If you think I am flying a $3k drone around my boat to spy on wrinkly middle aged white folks, you need to have another 'sundowner' and RELAX. It's a hobby that is spreading fast but will level off soon due to market saturation. If you did try to shoot at it, A, you would miss, B, there is about a 50% chance you would be on video, genius.
I can't speak for every drone owner, but I will say this- after having lost one in water, when I fly near it I am crapping myself because I am very nervous. 
To sum up, lighten up. Wave at it. Chances are whomever is flying is not even looking at you. If you wave, then you may become apparent in a wide angle image and the pilot wlll move on. We are not peeping Toms. We are hobbyists.


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> We are not peeping Toms. We are hobbyists.


Who's "we"?
Give me one reason why anybody should assume, much less take the word of some stranger who doesn't seem to like middle aged white folks, that you're using your rich kids' toy in purely innocent ways?
You yourself might very well be. But yours isn't likely to be the only loud, annoying machine hovering over people's boats and homes in the future.
If my drone was hovering (loudly) over your back yard while your daughter or your wife were sunning themselves, how would you feel about it? How about if instead, I parked my car in where I had a view of them and held a video camera? Just as a hobby, of course. Is there a difference between the two? And why is the cockpit of my boat any different than your backyard fence?


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

rbrasi , I will have another "sundowner", thank you . By your own admission your drone is loud , that's the main complaint from me. 2nd. is the fact you are taking pictures of me and Ms. Westi and that's just plain rude . 3rd . By another of your admissions you crash . So it could be said you could crash your abbynormal large drone into me and Ms. Westi . I'm gonna need another "sundowner".


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

I know I'm going to get cyber-spanked for this, and may possibly deserve it, but... well..... here goes...

The MAIN reason "drones" - quadracopters - have become so popular is because is they require very little skill to fly, compared to R/C airplanes and scale helicopters (the helicopters are very difficult to fly without a lot of practice.. I'm not referring to the coax cheapies, but the control-pitch blade models; they are VERY difficult). A "hobbyist" typically is willing to invest a significant amount time and money in their hobby to attain a certain appreciated level of skill. Drones are much easier to fly, so the time needed to "get up to speed" on them is much less.. hence the large amount of market share they have. Drones are MUCH preferred for aerial photography because of that stability. It would therefore seem, and yes, this IS an inference/hypothesis on my part, that the hobbyist drawn to drones rather than helicopters or airplanes, is drawn there FOR the photography/video capabilities, and not the flight. That, for me, is a red flag when you see a drone around your personal space.

I've flown airplanes (nitro) and helicopters (fixed pitch only so far, and electric). I have not flown a quad, so my comments are not based on first-hand experience. If I'm wrong, PLEASE correct me. As always, I'm here to learn and am willing to admit I'm wrong. 

Barry


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

In Britain a man is being charged with 17 breaches of the UK Air navigation act. He was flying his drone over football matches.

Confiscation, a substantial fine and maybe some jail time is the likely outcome. 

I know of someone taking sailing videos using drones. He knew of my RC plane / heli background and was bouncing some ideas off me re crash recovery. I learned that most photographers using drones regularly expect to 'lose' 2 to 4 a year!

Finally I am a keen skier, just back from 3 great weeks of groomer zooming in Utah. I have the greatest of respect for the mountain safety guys who do the avalanche 'protection' work. Basically they start avalanches with small explosions. In some cases this involves a guy skiing around on a cornice chucking sticks of dynamite over his shoulder. A drone can get to places that no human can get to and no sane eggbeater driver is going to fly in to. But I have also seen a prototype 'follow me' GoPro drone being used on a ski slope to follow a skier down an extreme slope. The video was stunning!


----------



## ultraclyde (Jun 4, 2014)

Drone solution:

1/2 oz oval fishing sinkers (lead, steel, or brass)
3' to 6' pieces of 100lb test fishing line tied to the weights
Good wrist brace slingshot.

They don't fly so well with a couple props wrapped up.

But do the world a favor and tangle them over the water, wouldn't want to hit someone else's boat. 

More fun than taking out carpenter bees with a badminton racket, and you won't spill your drink. You'll be amazed how far a good slingshot will put a 1/2 oz weight.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

"We" are 48 year old white guys with sailboats who also like to photograph sunsets over the marina, surfers, friends' boats on the water, house up for sale, etc. In other words, that's my way of saying I'm just like you, so don't be so quick to judge.


Sent from my iPhone using Sausage-like fingers


----------



## jwing (Jun 20, 2013)

WARNING: this post is not sailing-related:



TQA said:


> ...
> Finally I am a keen skier, just back from 3 great weeks of groomer zooming in Utah. I have the greatest of respect for the mountain safety guys who do the avalanche 'protection' work. Basically they start avalanches with small explosions. In some cases this involves a guy skiing around on a cornice chucking sticks of dynamite over his shoulder. A drone can get to places that no human can get to and no sane eggbeater driver is going to fly in to...


Avalanche danger is highest during weather conditions that prohibit flight, therefore drones are not considered viable avalanche-control tools. Avalanche-initiating charges are dropped from helicopters, but that is only after the stormy weather has passed. For control work during a storm, hand-delivered charges and large, stationary guns are used. Alta's new avalanche howitzer - X Games


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I got this image of an avalanche control drone dropping cherry bombs on the ridge tops.

Perhaps I need to get out more, but I don't think I've ever seen a drone flying in the air. Where is this plague? Chessie, Maine, the Keyes? Who has been bothered by drones in the California Delta, SF Bay, SoCal, or Catalina? What is the typical "attack"? A low fly by? Hover?


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

rbrasi said:


> "We" are 48 year old white guys with sailboats who also like to photograph sunsets over the marina, surfers, friends' boats on the water, house up for sale, etc. In other words, that's my way of saying I'm just like you, so don't be so quick to judge.


I've got no problem with any of that, provided that the surfers and boats you're photographing have no problem with it. I don't mean to imply that drones don't have a place, nor that they aren't a lot of fun, either. They do, and they are. Buzzing around a quiet marina over other people's boats, or photographing other people without prior consent, however, is rude, and that is not a polite usage of a drone. That's all I'm saying. There was another thread a while back about an appropriate volume of music in a marina, and the consensus was that if you can hear it when you're off your boat, it's probably too loud, or at least keep the volume at a level that it's not annoying to your marina neighbors. It would seem appropriate to hold drone usage to the same standard.

Yes?

Barry


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> I got this image of an avalanche control drone dropping cherry bombs on the ridge tops.
> 
> Perhaps I need to get out more, but I don't think I've ever seen a drone flying in the air. Where is this plague? Chessie, Maine, the Keyes? Who has been bothered by drones in the California Delta, SF Bay, SoCal, or Catalina? What is the typical "attack"? A low fly by? Hover?


Mr. B we are in the Long Beach Ca. area . I have seen them twice within the last 4 months . I suspect much more this summer. I just finished reading a article in a local newspaper called the Grunion Gazette, I got ill . Sorry it won't copy and paste , but you can easily find it if you Google Grunion Gazette . Main thing that got me crazy was that in the article it said you could fly a drone within 25' of a unprotected person . The website in the article is www.radfilght.com 
The article actually states drones can fly within 25' of a unprotected person .
Seriously, unprotected person ! What in the world does that mean ?


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

> that's my way of saying I'm just like you, so don't be so quick to judge.


Then don't make it so easy to do.
You may be a 48-year-old, soon-to-be-wrinkled white guy. But don't assume you're just like me, or or expect the rest of us to believe that everybody with a drone is just like you claim to be, with the respect for others' privacy that you proclaim. People don't like video cameras hovering noisily overhead. If you can't hear that without going on the offensive, then you're not the best spokesman for the hobby.
So have another flavored vodka and lighten up, yourself.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Barry, I agree. Valleyj, I don't drink, but I appreciate the suggestion!


Sent from my iPhone using Sausage-like fingers


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Tastefully Offensive: Chimpanzee Takes Out Drone with Tree Branch

Wisdom of the beasts.


----------



## Jetexas (Apr 3, 2012)

So the sound of drones is unacceptable, but the sound of wind generators are ok?


----------



## jongleur (Mar 16, 2013)

Not in my book.


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Markwesti in action .





edit , sorry jongleur . I'm a little testy before my first cup of coffee .


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Jetexas said:


> So the sound of drones is unacceptable, but the sound of wind generators are ok?


It's not the sound, but the invasion of privacy that's the issue. Although, I would pass on both sounds too.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Jetexas said:


> So the sound of drones is unacceptable, but the sound of wind generators are ok?


It depends... the barely audible sound of a D400 not so much, but the screaming banshee whine of a first generation Air Marine, definitely...

Although, I think comparing the sound of a Honda 2000 running on deck might be a more appropriate analogy...


----------



## Erindipity (Nov 29, 2014)

jongleur said:


> Tastefully Offensive: Chimpanzee Takes Out Drone with Tree Branch
> 
> Wisdom of the beasts.


Finally, a use for that Whisker Pole while at anchor!

Actually, that chimp gave me an idea, given that we just had Opening Day...

Batting Practice:

Perry Pitching, Finot at First, Lee at Second, King at Third, and MacGregor way, way, out in Left Field. (Not much action there.)

The Drone comes in low and slow. The Batter can go for an easy Strike, but the point is to hit the Drone right out of the Park, right into McCovey Cove.

This should prove to be immensely satisfying, both for Batters and Spectators.

(For those who are a little confused, the San Francisco Giants play out of the China Basin Ballpark, and one of the few McCovey Cove boating attractions is attempting to catch whatever happens to head out that way during Baseball Games. Perry, Finot, Lee, King and MacGregor are Naval Architects, with a largely West-Coast following.)

¬Erindipity


----------



## Azzarac (Sep 30, 2011)

Drones: Not just for flying anymore..
Minn Kota Ulterra TV Commercial, 'Autopilot' - iSpot.tv
Gotta admit though, that's pretty stinking cool!


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Makes me want to get a bass boat . Heavy on the metal flake though .


----------



## VallelyJ (Nov 21, 2008)

I've heard that several firearms manufacturers are working on guns that fire non-mentalic projectiles--plastic or gelatin pellets similar to birdshot, I believe--from guns that don't qualify as firearms. Not sure how they plan to do it, but their "target" market is people who want to kill intrusive drones.
With the violent crime rate the lowest it's been in many decades, and even worldwide violence in statistically meaningful decline in the past several centuries (including the first half of the 20th, believe it or not), I guess it makes sense for them to diversify from the huge side arms-as-fashion-accessories (aka "protect-my-family-from-tyrants-fantasy") market.
I hope it's true--I'm sold already.
JV


----------



## titustiger27 (Jan 17, 2013)

VallelyJ said:


> I've heard that several firearms manufacturers are working on guns that fire non-mentalic projectiles--plastic or gelatin pellets similar to birdshot, I believe--from guns that don't qualify as firearms. Not sure how they plan to do it, but their "target" market is people who want to kill intrusive drones.
> With the violent crime rate the lowest it's been in many decades, and even worldwide violence in statistically meaningful decline in the past several centuries (including the first half of the 20th, believe it or not), I guess it makes sense for them to diversify from the huge side arms-as-fashion-accessories (aka "protect-my-family-from-tyrants-fantasy") market.
> I hope it's true--I'm sold already.
> JV


Why not another drone with a slingshot... or a battering rod

flying a pirate flag: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/67026-flying-pirate-flag-lame.html


----------

