FPV HUB
Advanced search  

News:

Who's Online
  • Dot Guests: 146
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 0

There aren't any users online.
* Site Sponsor
* Random Gallery Items
X8 Front view

Views: 4612
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
tricopter3

Views: 1796
Posted by: [email protected]
in: Tricopter
Sky surfer close up

Views: 660
Posted by: ROVguy
in: ROVguys Album
FPV Y VENTURE 12 2009 035

Views: 2066
Posted by: COKE32
in: FPV SPAIN
* Latest Gallery Items
My Twin Dream

Views: 240
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
Vortex 285

Views: 203
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
Mini Talon Rebuild

Views: 228
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
Mini 3D Gimbal on MTD

Views: 219
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album
Matek 405-Wing

Views: 218
Posted by: Coyote
in: Coyote`s Album

Author Topic: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones  (Read 1595 times)

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:10:52 PM »

Many of us will of course have watched or been made aware of the biased, ill researched, factually incorrect and agenda driven programme referred to in the title of this thread. The idea that it was a documentary is laughable. Understandably it has upset a lot of people and organisations. Now DJI has joined in to voice their concerns over this pathetic piece of sensationalist journalism. You can read their letter to the BBC via the link.
If you feel suitably moved, please add your complaint to the many already lodged with the BBC and Ofcom.

https://terra-1-g.djicdn.com/851d20f7b9f64838a34cd02351370894/Open-Letter_BBC.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3rJNS5N8_WtwJzeQWNQjrFquZ9tzLNcky8vvgibCqL-bFhgM4cFdBlG7w
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 02:48:26 PM by electrotor »
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2019, 02:51:09 PM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint

The debate surrounding the programme continues to rage on in Facebook.
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

FPVSteve

  • "The Gaffer Tape King"
  • Administrator
  • Marshal of the Royal Air Force
  • *
  • Karma: 275
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12004
  • I don't so much fly as get flown.
    • DroneFinder
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2019, 02:52:22 PM »

Mud sticks, the public have seen the "documentary" and that is that.

This is the exact problem we face - animosity from people who use organisations like the BBC as their sole resource for information, and treat it as gospel.
Logged

CurryKitten

  • Global Moderator
  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 77
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3955
  • Brought to you by Google
    • My YouTube page
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2019, 05:23:09 PM »

I forced myself to watch this today as I think it's going to be a point of discussion in tonights LDO show.  A more interesting thing is here though -

https://twitter.com/londonlive/status/1146477485930045440?s=12&fbclid=IwAR2wZfdN_7xHII8hal-x1ntHzzsBaNchwIgHd4qe9QdXmt6aPKGJcsw4KBE

If you watch that, you'll see him interacting about drones like a normal human.  Mentioning the "was there/wasn't there a drone" thing at Gatwick and saying the firing test (could you believe that crap) was somewhat less than scientific.

I'm confused about why he wasn't asking these questions... you know to add balance, during the program.  Perhaps he did and it was cut out, depends on who's agenda the sensationalist crap was.  The director/program makers, or him ?

Dillwhacker

  • Wing Commander
  • *
  • Karma: 10
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 799
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2019, 10:48:21 PM »

Cheers for posting that CK.
I don't do Social Media, but that was worth seeing.
Taaaaa
Trev
Logged

Dave

  • Wing Commander
  • *
  • Karma: 6
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
  • Let there be Flight....
    • F.P.heaVen
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2019, 11:21:00 AM »

I purposely avoided watching it for fear of my piss reaching boiling point. Just the title made it come pretty close >:(
Logged
WWW.FPHEAVEN.CO.UK

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2019, 07:07:44 PM »

The BBC's response to DJI.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48866152

Perhaps the BBC executives have a different version of the programme.
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2019, 11:11:48 PM »

My complaint to the BBC.

I wish to make a strong complaint about the above programme. I found it to be heavily biased, poorly researched, factually incorrect and unnecessarily alarmist. I will go through my objections step by step.

Title – “Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones”
The title poses a question then immediately presents an answer as a statement. If “Drones” have been followed by a question mark, this may have indicated that it was a possible answer, but unfortunately, before the programme even began it was without doubt showing the bias and conclusion before the presentation had been made. It very clearly set the tone for what was an unbalanced production.

Crash testing
The presenter described the motors as “solid metal” as if describing a bullet or mortar shell. They are not. They are machined from solid metal to form rings and plates and will crack, bend or indeed shatter. He then went on to dismantle the drone by using a hammer commenting that it was “robust”. Might I suggest a more scientific approach would have been to use a small hacksaw which would have easily cut through the thin plastic shell if all he was trying to do was reduce the drone to smaller pieces. And finally, black rods were introduced to the collection of pieces. They were not part of the drone and the effect they may have had was not taken into account.
Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge of aerodynamics will tell you that aircraft lifting surfaces require airflow over them to function. In the case of the tail-plane used, a typical airflow would be around 100 to 300 knots or more. This airflow has an effect on that which passes above and below the lifting surface and how that reacts. In addition the angle of attack of the lifting surface, the direction of the impacting object and the point of impact are all factors. However the aerodynamic arguments apart, the fact remains that the drone was smashed apart, repackaged as a smaller bundle complete with foam filler, to keep it together, and unidentified rods which were not part of the drone, then fired at the leading edge. I'm not arguing against properly conducted testing using aircraft parts and air cannons, I'm arguing against the testing presented on the programme. The purpose of the test should have been to demonstrate what an actual drone could do to an aircraft. What we got was a demonstration of what a repackaged and bonded together plug of parts could do to an aircraft. If Encap crash testing was conducted in such an unrealistic and cavalier manner, the results would be laughed at and treated as being inadmissible.

Gatwick incident
This was presented as fact when, in fact, no credible evidence has been produced from any source to verify that the incident involved drones. Even your own Panorama programme stated that. In this day and age of every insignificant cough, sneeze or stumble being captured on video, many in the model flying community find it incredible that, despite days of disruption, thousands of potential witnesses both inside and outside Gatwick and the presence of trained professionals, nothing has yet emerged to prove the existence of drones. The programme should at least have had the good grace to emphasise that the sightings, however well meaning and reported, were alleged but unsupported by actual evidence. Accident and incident investigators deal regularly with witnesses and have all experienced how these witnesses can interpret what they see and how unreliable they are once the facts are established through evidence and not just witness accounts. This of course has left a vacuum which has been filled with everything from drones to alien UFOs or a government conspiracy. Yet you chose to present the alleged sightings as fact with no questioning or substantiation.

Airprox reports
These were publicly discredited weeks before the programme was broadcast by the Airprox Board themselves. Responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request from Airprox Reality Check, they said they had no proof a drone has ever flown close to an aircraft in UK skies. They also revealed to the group, which was formed as a response to the mis-recording of drone airproxes in the UK, that there is no confirmation that a drone has ever been involved in any of the drone airprox reports published to date. I suggest that your programme chose to ignore this because it did not fit with the agenda of a heavily biased presentation.

Theatrical effect
Was there any justification to use repeated shots of a dark hooded figure, not quite sharply focused to represent the illegal drone user? Mere theatre – it should not have been part of a properly produced documentary.

Weaponising
The presenter latched on to this with an eagerness which betrayed an agenda to seriously scaremonger uninformed viewers. I lost count of the number of times he used the word.

Drone racers
They demonstrated the skills necessary to conduct this activity. These skills are not learned overnight and require a great deal of practice. Yet this was presented in the context of off-the-shelf availability and precision targeting. I hope the two flyers involved now realise how you hijacked their contribution to use against drone users.

Beneficial uses of drones
This was given scant coverage. It demonstrated, should any doubt have remained that the programme set out with an agenda to demonise drones.

Balanced reporting
Would I be correct in thinking that the BBC aims to present balanced and unbiased reporting? If so I would like to know when to expect a future programme which redresses the balance.

I would appreciate a detailed response. Should that not be forthcoming I will raise my complaint with Ofcom.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 11:13:24 PM by electrotor »
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2019, 11:14:19 PM »

Their response.

Thank you for your email about ‘Horizon: Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones’.
We raised your concerns with the programme makers.
In the wake of the crisis at Gatwick Airport last year, and the strong public interest, the BBC’s flagship science strand Horizon decided to investigate the latest technology behind drones and whether the safety measures around UK aviation are keeping pace with these advances. Both the Sussex Police and Gatwick Airport have confirmed the disruption was caused by the presence of a drone.
Our programme investigates these issues in the public interest, to understand how best we can protect our airports and other vulnerable locations from the threat of potential drone misuse.
The continued relevance of this was highlighted again in the last couple of weeks when a spokesperson from the British Airline Pilots Association raised their concern with MPs that the threat to aircraft from drones is currently potentially underestimated.
Although the central drive of the film looks at the issues around safety and preventing potential misuse, from the outset and at several points during the programme the presenter Aldo Kane highlights the potential benefits of drone technology and the positive impact it can and will make in the future.
The film does not claim that drone technology is unsafe, but rather that it can be used maliciously when in the wrong hands. Indeed, as drone users ourselves, the BBC is well aware of the positive benefits of them when used appropriately.
The impact assessment test and methodology shown in the programme was designed and carried out by an independent expert. The aim was to show the potential difference between a simulated bird strike, and a drone impact on a section of an aircraft.
The tests followed standard practice of using surrogate projectiles with both the bird and drone being represented by structures and materials that represented their key physical characteristics. The rods were not Carbon Fibre, but PVC to match the properties of the rotors. The test focussed on the damage extent and depth of penetration of the motors which is largely unaffected by their initial packaging and orientation. The nature and scope of the test is made explicitly clear to the audience at the start of the sequence.
Transformative technology such as drones will challenge many aspects of society and we believe it is important to provide the audience with rigorous scrutiny of new technology and an informed and intelligent analysis of the safety concerns that may raise.
The documentary is based on the very latest scientific research, and was made with advice from leading experts in drone security, technology, policy and legislation. We feel it provides an accurate and balanced reflection of the potential problems and solutions in this rapidly developing field of technology.
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

electrotor

  • Air Vice-Marshal
  • *
  • Karma: 80
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3515
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2019, 11:16:28 PM »

My initial thoughts.

Gatwick incident
"Sussex Police and Gatwick Airport have confirmed the disruption was caused by the presence of a drone."
It is obviously in their interest not to loose face so I, and many others, would like to see the evidence.

Balanced reporting
"Although the central drive of the film looks at the issues around safety and preventing potential misuse, from the outset and at several points during the programme the presenter Aldo Kane highlights the potential benefits of drone technology and the positive impact it can and will make in the future"
Maybe a minute or two within an hours programme.

Crash testing
"The tests followed standard practice of using surrogate projectiles with both the bird and drone being represented by structures and materials that represented their key physical characteristics. The rods were not Carbon Fibre, but PVC to match the properties of the rotors. The test focussed on the damage extent and depth of penetration of the motors which is largely unaffected by their initial packaging and orientation. The nature and scope of the test is made explicitly clear to the audience at the start of the sequence."
OK but a rod does not flex like a rotor, the rotors would have been spaced apart and not bundled together, the shell of the drone would have absorbed some of the impact, the tailplane was already structurally compromised by the bird strike, the drone contains no adhesive filler to bind it all together, the cross sectional area, shape and density of the surrogate projectile is not the same as the original drone.......etc, etc.

Title
Not addressed

Airprox reports
Not addressed

Theatrical effect
Not addressed

Weapononising
Not addressed

Drone racers
Not addressed

Beneficial uses of drones
Addressed bur see Balanced reporting above
Logged
Natibus in luto, caput inter nubila.

jono44

  • Squadron Leader
  • *
  • Karma: 5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2019, 05:10:12 PM »

Irony is we pay the BBC to give us propaganda, China gets theirs for free.
Stop paying the BBC tv license.
Logged

FPVSteve

  • "The Gaffer Tape King"
  • Administrator
  • Marshal of the Royal Air Force
  • *
  • Karma: 275
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12004
  • I don't so much fly as get flown.
    • DroneFinder
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2019, 09:11:39 PM »

I haven't paid for a TV licence for years because I never watch TV ... probably why I have so many kids tbh.
Logged

Dave

  • Wing Commander
  • *
  • Karma: 6
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 587
  • Let there be Flight....
    • F.P.heaVen
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2019, 11:23:52 AM »

That is EXACTLY the same response I got from them after raising similar points.

I forced myself to watch it in the end and really wish I hadn't to be honest.
Logged
WWW.FPHEAVEN.CO.UK

F104

  • Pilot Officer
  • *
  • Karma: 1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2019, 12:35:09 PM »

I'm still cleaning up the splats of puke that sprayed out as i attempted to get to the bog.. >:(
Logged

BigT

  • Nothing works !!
  • Air Commodore
  • *
  • Karma: 23
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2874
  • I'm not deaf just thinking
Re: Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2019, 10:31:27 AM »

This doesn’t help much.
Logged
Favorite TV Series:The Sopranos
Favorite WW2 Movie's: Kelly's Heroes, Battle of Britain, Band of Bro
 


* Recent Topics
Best module for fatshark? by ched
[Yesterday at 12:29:55 PM]


Drone and model aircraft registration - latest. by BigT
[November 16, 2019, 07:34:22 PM]


E.T.s Flywoo Mr Croc 5 inch Quad Build...Long Range? by English Turbines
[November 16, 2019, 05:11:44 PM]


I met up with my friend of 42 years! by luv2rip-fvp
[November 13, 2019, 11:56:26 PM]


Pilot Competency Exemptions by BigT
[November 10, 2019, 12:55:44 AM]


Creality Ender Series by Coyote
[November 09, 2019, 03:39:17 PM]


Withdrawal by Jakalas
[November 08, 2019, 12:18:29 PM]


Toothpick class - slow for garden use? by ched
[November 07, 2019, 09:33:13 PM]


Finally! by luv2rip-fvp
[November 05, 2019, 02:24:37 AM]


Some indoor whopping by luv2rip-fvp
[November 02, 2019, 12:47:04 PM]

* Keywords
fpvhub  fpv hub
first person view video piloting

rc r/c r.c. model aircraft flight pilot fpv piloting wings fly flying flight fuse fuselage aileron tail pan tilt tx rx vtx rtx receiver transmitter video radio control controlled headtracker fpvuk bfpvmfa fpv uk first person view video piloting fpv servo servos easystar easy star multiplex antenna VR1400 fatshark video goggles 2.4 5.8 1.2 900 ghz mhz uhf panel antenna circular fpv polarised tracker dbi 10mw 100mw 500mw camera osd fpvuk bfpvmfa fpv first person view video piloting downlink ezantenna tracker gps EzOSD current sensor tiny telemetry autopilot ccd gopro kx131 kx171 FY21 FY21A FY21AP II IMU oracle diversity processor video switcher fpvuk bfpvmfa fpv uk first person view video piloting insurance simulator delta wing glider funjet quadcropter helis heli helicopter electric nitro scratchbuild scratch build batteries battery 2s 3s 4s lipo lipos fpvuk first person view video piloting Antenna fpvhub  fpv first person view video piloting rc r/c r.c. model aircraft flight pilot fpv Airframe Artifical Horizon Auto pilot Av AWG AWU Bec Brownout Buddy box C rating CG Circular Polarized Data logger Dbi Dbm Dipole Diversity DVR Easycap EPO EPP Failsafe FM Freshnel zone Frequency Gain Ghz Goggles GPS Ground Station Gyro Head Tracker HD Hz Inverted Vee Jst LC Filter Lipo LUX Mah Mhz Omni OSD Pan Patch Platform Polarization Rssi RTH Servo Spotter Telemetry Tilt Tracker Transmitter TVL Ubec UHF Video Splitter Vrx Vtx Watts Yagi  fpv uk first person view video piloting rc r/c r.c. model aircraft flight pilot fpv

http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;xml http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=0 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=100 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=200 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=300 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=400 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=500 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=600 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=700 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=800 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=900 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=1000 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=1100 http://www.fpvhub.com/forum/index.php?action=sitemap;start=1200
* Disclaimer
The content, views and opinions expressed within this forum are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, official policy or position of FpvHub. However, we reserve the right to remove or edit any content considered inappropriate.