Fox Sports Using Drones

Cykoguy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
405
Location
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Display Name

Display name:
Cykoguy
I noticed they used one for shots of tailgating and from around ISU's campus during the coverage of the game last night. I would think this would violate the no commercial use mandate since they have sent letters to TV stations and realtors among others telling them to stop or face action. It will be interesting to see if the FAA will find out and/or if they do anything.

Here is a video of them using it in the locker room.

http://instagram.com/p/tbXKHqGlv-/?modal=true
 
The shots are probably going to be considered informational,as opposed to commercial use. For entertainment only.
 
Fox and their ilk think laws are just for the little people.
 
I saw my first drone this weekend. One of those quarotor things with a GoPro underneath. It was buzzing over the park I was in.
 
I hate the term "Drones" for these. They are quad copters or RC copters.

Drones...AKA unmanned aerial vehicles carry hellfire missiles or surveillance and infrared cameras!

The media has sensationalized these to make it sound like the government is lurking overhead and the are the same "drones" that are taking out terrorist!

...not that the government isn't lurking overhead...it is just not the doofus with the GoPro.
 
I hate the term "Drones" for these. They are quad copters or RC copters.

Drones...AKA unmanned aerial vehicles carry hellfire missiles or surveillance and infrared cameras!

The media has sensationalized these to make it sound like the government is lurking overhead and the are the same "drones" that are taking out terrorist!

...not that the government isn't lurking overhead...it is just not the doofus with the GoPro.

I don't know where you are getting that notion because if you Google the word "drone" the first hit you get is a list of ones you can buy on Amazon and I'm pretty sure none of them carry Hellfire missiles.
 
Who brought up political leanings, you paranoid bagger.


Fox and their ilk think laws are just for the little people...

My response"......................

Ha ..... Pot = Kettle = Black...:D
 
Last edited:
I remember when Drones were cannon fodder, and nothing else.
 
I hate the term "Drones" for these. They are quad copters or RC copters.

Drones...AKA unmanned aerial vehicles carry hellfire missiles or surveillance and infrared cameras!

The media has sensationalized these to make it sound like the government is lurking overhead and the are the same "drones" that are taking out terrorist!

...not that the government isn't lurking overhead...it is just not the doofus with the GoPro.

A drone is simply a remotely piloted aerial vehicle. Remember all the target drones they have used at least since WWII? No hellfires.
 
Why does every thread have to turn political?
 
Beats me......

Ask Paulie....:rolleyes2:

I thought he meant FOX, NBC, CBS, and other companies that create video media. I often get the impression that reporters, no matter their corporation, feel they are above the laws or man or physics (storm reporters for this last). I've seen reporters for the local **** ant station demand access from the local police or fire department.
 
Last edited:
I get that the term drone has been now commonly applied to anything that flies remotely down to a RC quad copter, but the media makes it sound like the skies are full of military style Reaper and Predator drones.
 
Cap'n Jack;1567428[B said:
]I thought he meant FOX, NBC, CBS, and other companies that create video media.[/B] I often get the impression that reporters, no matter their corporation, feel they are above the laws or man or physics (storm reporters for this last). I've seen reporters for the local **** ant station demand access from the local police or fire department.

If he did.. I apologize... :redface:
 
People can apply to the FAA for waivers in order to use them for commercial purposes, I thought?
 
I have a quadcopter with a GoPro-like camera mounted underneath. The lens on the camera is super wide angle, so once you're above about 50 feet people become almost unrecognizable. I think of it as a cheap, easy way to get cool aerial photos and photos. The hype and fury about these "drones" is, for the most part, unwarranted.
 
Hmmmm

ABC /ESPN and NBC liberals have been using them for years at NASCAR races to cover pit road.....:rolleyes:....:rolleyes2:

I thought NASCAR was on a cable, just like the NFL. I remember a race last year when a cable broke and fell on the track damaging a few cars.
 
I thought NASCAR was on a cable, just like the NFL. I remember a race last year when a cable broke and fell on the track damaging a few cars.

That is exactly what NASCAR uses. These were very nice shots of the tailgating areas and of central campus that were clearly obtained from a "drone". Personally I have no issue with them doing it. I have just heard several local TV people say that their legal teams have told them to not use video obtained this way either by themselves or by someone else due to the no commercial use mandate.
 
Does the "no commercial use" apply if you have a commercial ticket and a second class medical?
 
I have a quadcopter with a GoPro-like camera mounted underneath. The lens on the camera is super wide angle, so once you're above about 50 feet people become almost unrecognizable. I think of it as a cheap, easy way to get cool aerial photos and photos. The hype and fury about these "drones" is, for the most part, unwarranted.

The only hype I ever hear is when some clown is toying with one in an airport approach area or when otherwise spotted in areas where actual aircraft are operating. Aside from that if you want to play with one of these things then take it out to an R/C flying field or such. they've got no business in public areas such as parks, campgrounds, etc. It's pretty obvious that as these devices proliferate the general public is going to tire of them very quickly as they are, at the very least, an extreme annoyance.
 
Does the "no commercial use" apply if you have a commercial ticket and a second class medical?
Per the FAA since they are not certified aircraft, then no can do. You get down the rabbit hole of legal circles.
 
The only hype I ever hear is when some clown is toying with one in an airport approach area or when otherwise spotted in areas where actual aircraft are operating. Aside from that if you want to play with one of these things then take it out to an R/C flying field or such. they've got no business in public areas such as parks, campgrounds, etc. It's pretty obvious that as these devices proliferate the general public is going to tire of them very quickly as they are, at the very least, an extreme annoyance.
Yes only fly them in RC fields. Wait until we make GA operating areas for your toy GA airplanes to stay in. The public is tired of hearing them for the last 100 years. Remember what momma said, you share the airspace or you won't get any.:lol:
 
I get that the term drone has been now commonly applied to anything that flies remotely down to a RC quad copter, but the media makes it sound like the skies are full of military style Reaper and Predator drones.

The term drone predates Predator, etc...

The common use for drones before the latest with weapons were for recon (much as the TV ones are being used) and for doing things like target practice/experiments where you wouldn't want a real pilot.
 
It's pretty obvious that as these devices proliferate the general public is going to tire of them very quickly as they are, at the very least, an extreme annoyance.

Sadly, many people have said this about the airplanes we fly as well.:(
 
I'm not sure why it is that when these discussions start someone always tries to compare a whirring, semi autonomous, camera toting quadcopter buzzing a few dozen feet over your head at a beach, a picnic spot or a campground to a Cessna 172 passing overhead at 3,000 feet. An earlier poster tried to infer that GA airplanes were "toys" the likes of these R/C drones.

There is absolutely no comparative basis between the two.

I am not particularly for or against the devices, I'm just pointing out that due to their relatively low cost and ease of operation, as they increase in numbers the jerks among us are inevitably going to do things with them that will cause the general public to proclaim "all right, we've had enough of this crap" and the result is going to be legislation and regulation. The writing is already on the wall.
 
I'm not sure why it is that when these discussions start someone always tries to compare a whirring, semi autonomous, camera toting quadcopter buzzing a few dozen feet over your head at a beach, a picnic spot or a campground to a Cessna 172 passing overhead at 3,000 feet. An earlier poster tried to infer that GA airplanes were "toys" the likes of these R/C drones.

There is absolutely no comparative basis between the two.

I am not particularly for or against the devices, I'm just pointing out that due to their relatively low cost and ease of operation, as they increase in numbers the jerks among us are inevitably going to do things with them that will cause the general public to proclaim "all right, we've had enough of this crap" and the result is going to be legislation and regulation. The writing is already on the wall.
You are saying a jerk in a GA plane can't cause alarm to the general public. That's a relief.
The public is going to be less annoyed with drones then little airplanes because toy drones are something everyone has or can have. Any public outcry re: drones will be manufactured by those that wants to spy on the people without the people being able to spy back. There are no real public outcries they are all campaigns produced and paid for.
 
Back
Top