So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
[deleted]
Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
I do blame news outlets going for sensational news rather than factual statements. This is real journalism: "Flight X234 had to emergency land due to a collision with an unidentified object right after takeoff. It is not unusual to hit birds or other objects, but at at this time we don't know what it was." This is pimping news for money: "OMG, terrorist drone bought at 7/11 was navigated by attackers into plane to ki…
[deleted]
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about multi-rotor and hobby aircraft regulation. Part of me looks at all the idiots out there and goes: "okay, that's fair." But then it impacts responsible flyers and isn't consistent with some existing case law and even the US Constitution. In my state they've enacted a law that makes it illegal to film, then post video on YouTube from a multi-rotor and have all but made it illegal to…
What state, and it explicitly states any video you take with a drone cannot be uploaded to the internet?
Idaho. Specifically any drone footage with a human who has not signed a waiver. It's a real piece of work and I've partnered with a production firm here in town and hope to have a real funny video challenge to the law sometime this summer.
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
I do blame news outlets going for sensational news rather than factual statements. This is real journalism: "Flight X234 had to emergency land due to a collision with an unidentified object right after takeoff. It is not unusual to hit birds or other objects, but at at this time we don't know what it was." This is pimping news for money: "OMG, terrorist drone bought at 7/11 was navigated by attackers into plane to ki…
A pilot landed an aircraft after a collision with an object he believed to be a drone, following four confirmed incidents of drone near misses at UK airports in recent months. Media reported the incontrovertible fact of the aircraft landing and the pilot's presumably good-faith belief it was a drone. The BBC even put 'drone' in inverted commas in their original headline.
You are seriously arguing that this amounts to "lies" and should be suppressed?
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is a public perception difference (especially in the UK with our pervasive CCTV culture) between government surveillance and the somewhat inevitable tabloid "voyeur with a drone" thought process. Constant state monitoring and Dirty Derek with a DJI are separate concerns.
How is everyone so sure that "Dirty Derek" doesn't work for the government and do this exact thing with no oversight?
If drone surveillance by government officials is routine, then civil libertarians should be even happier at curbs in civilian drone use over their private property. A clearer warning to dissidents they might be under surveillance, and an avenue to complain which might get "Dirty Derek" kicked off drone duty if he's actually just abusing the police quad to gawp at your neighbour sunbathing topless.
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#76"A small drone helicopter passed within 30ft of the cockpit of an A319 plane while on the approach to Heathrow" I really dislike the use of the word "drone" here. It really implies something that it's not - in that case it was a helicopter, in most other cases they use that term it's an RC quadcopter. Unless we're going to start calling everything that's RC a drone.
'Drone' has become a fad word. But it has a real meaning - an un-manned aerial vehicle. So technically even a model helicopter is a drone. I've resisted using 'drone' carelessly, and always say 'quadcopter' or 'helicopter' or whatever is appropriate.
If "vehicle" does not require cargo capability, even birds are drones. If "vehicle" requires cargo, an RC helicopter (which typically has no cargo) is no drone.
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
This is the identical thing that will make adoption of self-driving cars difficult on a broad scale. Thousands of human-caused accidents and deaths, but the first person to die in a self-driving car (even if it's not that car's fault) will be devastating to rollout.
Well, of course. Other humans are fallible and crash their cars all the time, but I'm a good driver and would never crash, so I don't want a self-driving car.
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
News should not report stuff they don't know is true. Otherwise it's just reddit on TV and we wouldn't need the profession called journalism.
Honestly, Reddit is much better than mainstream news. On Reddit when someone says something like this, someone else will be quick to call bullshit. The same is true for Hacker News btw.
This is exactly right. All I see now in mainstream news is corruption and undisclosed agendas, and just a general insult to intelligence.
When mainstream news is reporting stories about reality TV and sports "stars" from the same network, you know for sure it's all a big charade to sell advertising.
Of course, reddit has it's own problems as a source of truth... But there's always /r/thathappened to set us straight.
Re: Drone unlikely to have hit BA plane near Heathrow, government says
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is a public perception difference (especially in the UK with our pervasive CCTV culture) between government surveillance and the somewhat inevitable tabloid "voyeur with a drone" thought process. Constant state monitoring and Dirty Derek with a DJI are separate concerns.
How is everyone so sure that "Dirty Derek" doesn't work for the government and do this exact thing with no oversight?
Snowden revealed, naughty pics from the surveillance database were regularly filched & traded amongst his colleagues.
So "Dirty Derek" does work as a spy.