Yosemite prohibits drones

I wonder how many that have commented on this thread and expressed an opinion have any experience or knowledge of "drones"

Seems to me folks are getting a bit mixed up between security forces type drones (basically remote controlled planes in size) and a hobby type quad/multi copter.

Speaking as someone that owns several Quad/multi copters i can say with a fair amount of confidence that the days of one of these following a backpacker is a longgggggggggggggggg way off.

You'd be lucky to get 20 mins out of a battery as it is, start loading it up with weight and you'll be lucky if one takes off never mind follows you carrying your kit.

It's not like you can use a "throw batteries at it" solution either as the more battery capacity you install the heavier it is, the heavier it is the larger the props and motors, the larger the props and motors the more current draw and so on.

It's not they can glide either, if they're in the air then they are drawing a fair amount of current.

For a quadcopter to lift say 20kg for say 1 hour you are going to need a tremendous amount of super light weight battery power.
No such battery technology exists or is even on the foreseeable horizon.

A plane could at least glide, but again making a plane that can carry 20kg and have enough fuel to spend hours flying just isn't feasible right now.
Plus if you used a plane where would you land it on the side of a mountain?

I've been flying and driving radio controlled devices for the last 30 years, it's rare to go to a club meet and not see a plane, copter, quadcopter fail and/or crash.
So even IF there was some magical battery technology released tomorrow these craft are complex machines with a high failure rate, so they still wouldn't be viable.

So if folks look into the technology rather than the sensationalist media they'll see it really is just a storm in a tea cup

Unfortunately these ARE apparently known as drones by the media at the moment, though I agree a lot of people seem to get them confused with military stuff. I have held one of the quad-copters in my hands where I used to work, and I if anything I'd want some d-bag buzzing my head with his "toy" even less than the the NSA. If I find one buzzing my head and I can reach it I'm clubbing it (and maybe it operator if I'm in an especially bad mood) like a baby seal, and not because I'm afraid of my privacy. It would just be freaking rude. Rudeness is much more insidious than terrorism, IMO.

At any rate some amateur jackass, for all the reasons you mentioned above, should not be buzzing a congregation of people just so he can put the video in his youtube post. He is going to end up conking some little old lady watching a talk on the head.

"So if folks look into the technology rather than the sensationalist media they'll see it really is just a storm in a tea cup"

Actually, I think your post is very useful for showing why they should NOT be allowed in places like Yosemite.

So if folks look into the technology rather than the sensationalist media they'll see it really is just a storm in a tea cup

My one word reply is 'precedent'

Precedent is never a small thing; it is huge. Especially in a litigious society or supposed 'rights'

Billy

Someone was flying a quadcopter at Mirror Lake in Yosemite back in January. My friends and I were hiking down the Snow Creek Trail and could hear the thing from nearly a mile off. I had no idea what it was until we got there – but the noise was really annoying and after a few days in the backcountry it was a rude reintroduction to civilization. I for one am glad they are now banned.

It would be extremely foolish to "club it", the rotors are spinning at the speed of sound, it you break one then if it's had height and within "clubbing" distance there is a good chance you will get injured or blinded.

It's not just the rotors either, if you puncture the LiPo battery pack that most use you will a battery pack spitting fire at you, they don't tend to explode, but they do spit flame like a Catherine wheel firework.

So i would not advise anyone to try and knock one out of the sky or destroy one.

In the years i've been using radio controlled craft i can't say as i have ever come across a single person that wants to "buzz someones head", it would be extremely foolish and irresponsible, that's not the sort of people you tend to get investing the money, effort and time to learn how to fly craft like this.

As in any walk of society you get your good and bad, but it's rare you'll find someone willing to risk another person life just to "buzz" them

"As in any walk of society you get your good and bad, but it's rare you'll find someone willing to risk another person life just to "buzz" them"

Maybe not the average adult, but you should talk to my wife, she's a teacher, and kids in the US at least seem to be getting more and more dumb, irresponsible, unethical etc in some ways (the one good trend is they seem to become less racist, and less prejudiced towards same sex love as time goes on–slightly). I blame a combo of crappy, toxic diets (and less exercise), less than desirable parenting, and generally growing up in a society that is very sick in many ways.

High school teachers have been getting reports of the up and coming middle schoolers… i suspect a lot of teachers will be quitting or retiring in the next couple of years.

Anyways, i could see plenty of current and up and coming teens doing stupid stuff like that, not realizing or even thinking about the possible consequences of harm to the people or legal repercussions to self–hey, it's just like a video game right.. As regards money and effort, too many kids nowadays are handed too much to easily and too often (assuaging some deep inner guilt for not being around much and actually spending much time with them?).

Hi Justin,

I assumed we were talking about these quadcopters on trails, if that's the case it's unlikely a kit will be out there unsupervised, so i can't see it being a problem.

To be honest it's a LOT of equipment, tools and spares to carry around on wilderness trips for very very little gain.

For a quadcopter to bean back even a half decent image, say for path recon it will need to be fairly big, you're talking at least 2kg with batteries here.
Now figure that you will need a a controller that again will be fairly big and heavy and very delicate so will need a case.
Then there are spare batteries of which they'd need a fair few for multi day trips.

So we have 2 scenario's

1/ A owner flys their quadcopter from home or a highway to a remote location.
This is extremely risky as if the battery dies or they crash it that's $100's if not $1000's lost.
It's not like they can fly any great distance either, something like a RC plane will have a LOT more range

2/ Owner carries the quadcopter with them.
Again extremely unlikely due to the shear size and weight of everything you'd need

Funny thing is RC planes have been using cameras for FPV for years and no one has said anything.
They have better range are more reliable, use less battery power and are quieter, but again no one has kicked up a fuss about them.

As i say for me a person involved in the hobby it's simply just the media stirring up a storm in a tea cup.

Ignorant hikers, runners, cyclists, bears, coyotes, mountain lions, mosquitoes and even ticks all offer far more risk and annoyance yet they're not as "sensational" as a media output putting the headline "Drones"

See, it IS safe to grow pot in Yosemite!

I'm doing the Yosemite High Camp Loop (clockwise) in late July. Maybe I'll become Johnny Weedseed while I'm there. (Kidding, of course.) "Lips that touch pot shall never touch mine!"

"Lips that touch pot shall never touch mine!"

That's a lonely path you've chosen, Danepacker. ;0)

According to the FAA, some toy model aircraft are now illegal –

“Models must be visible at all times, …. without vision-enhancing devices, …. [including] goggles that give a “first-person view” from the model.”

Hobbyists are concerned new US Federal Aviation Administration guidance classifying first-person-view model aircraft as drones will ground toy planes unless they have a permit.

David Schneider, of the IEEE Spectrum, said a child’s toy such as the Hubsan FPV X4 Mini RTF Quadcopter would now require a permit to fly.

There was nothing in the interpretation by the FAA about a screen on the controller. The main concern was goggles as they limit line of site view. However, if that toy is operated where the user cannot see it except on the screen then it would be in violation. The line of site rule is a safety precaution.

Tom,

I'll bet my aversion to female pot smokers is why, when chicks offered me a toke in college, and I said, "EEeeeewwww!" they never wanted to "get busy" afterwards. How lonely I was. Now I understand.

"Now I understand."

That damn hindsight again. Cost me many a busy evening as well, albeit not because of an aversion to pot. I lucked out in that regard, because in Michigan back in the early 60's no one knew what pot was, at least at Michigan State. I found other ways to be lonely. :o[

"I'll bet my aversion to female pot smokers is why, when chicks offered me a toke in college, and I said, "EEeeeewwww!" they never wanted to "get busy" afterwards. How lonely I was. Now I understand."

Don't be silly! I smoked a lot of pot in high school and I hardly ever ……. oh, wait, that's not true.

Never mind.

Drone crashes into famed hot spring at Yellowstone National Park

As a techie myself, I’m getting increasingly annoyed with the morons who have been enabled with widespread drone technology. I’m about ready to spin up an open source project to build a drone jammer – only because I don’t think there’s a good way to make them just explode on takeoff.

Two words – anti-drone drones! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Skaffen-Amtiskaw for anti-drone drone?