Well, you are flying a semi-toy without proper safety near people, buildings, above roads, cars, etc on a tourist site. An arrest might be slightly over the top, but this should not be allowed.
I'm a model RC pilot for 20 years and these kind of "stunts" are hurting the hobby. At least ask for permission next time.
A phantom only has 4 motors, and the quality is "meh" - there is hardly any 2nd control (fa I have tripple recievers in my jets, if one RC system fails I still regain control over another radio).
It has a "failsafe" - i=even if it works it's still not really good in an urban area. GPS signals might be weak (flyaway danger) and it's only flies to 25 meters when returning to home. It could fly into a tower or even not reach proper 25 meter when the 3D GPS lock is weak or disengaged.
My 2 cents. Sorry. Please people, don't fly above crowded areas. I've seen a Phantom hit a car it's almost 1KG of deadweight when it comes down. It's only a matter of time until someone gets hurt.
As an avid RC/quadcopter enthousiast I second this. Do not fly over populated areas. Imagine flying a 2 pound brick with 4 sharp, spinning blades at 25 mph. With a camera attached. Sounds safe? You're right, they're not. I've seen a quadcopter crash through the windshield of a car without any trouble.
Flying over urban areas is asking for trouble, and will hurt the RC hobby gravely. It's people like these who will cause a legal ban on RC models.
There have been photos published on Reddit from people who were seriously cut up by the spinning propeller blades - both from RC helicopters and commercial quadcopters.
Not something I want happening to me, or being responsible for.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great hobby! Designing, building, tinkering, flying, improving (and repairing, always repairing) your own models is very rewarding. If you know what you're doing it's not a very dangerous hobby, too. A lot more people get injured with baseball, american football, kayaking, paragliding, cycling, racing, scuba diving, boating just to name a few. If you have a little common sense (not grabbing your UAV out of the sky with your bare hands, for instance), keep a safe distance with buildings, roads, people and animals you'll be fine!
Mad fun to fly, it can do everything its bigger brothers can (well, apart from carrying your GoPro, of course!), and it's only $23.00. Worst thing that can happen is your cat attacking it, but with these tiny props and this weight, no damage will be done!
Part of the problem with these devices is accessibility. It's been common for a long time for people doing RC to get involved in clubs, build their own aircraft, understand how the aircraft works (how it flies, its engine, its radio components).
Quadcopters seem totally 'plug and play'.
I'm involved (somewhat) in high-altitude balloon flights and we have a similar problem. People want to be able to buy a kit of everything they need to launch a balloon into the stratosphere. There's been a lot of resistance in the UKHAS because we want people to learn about the entire process (and that includes safety).
Accessibility is an issue. Technology that was military-grade only 1 decade ago (UAV's, powerful model rockets which can be converted to guided missiles) is available for anyone to buy online today.
With great buying power comes great responsibiliy.
It seems there should be a nice market for improve safety. Making hard objects slow down or crash safely is not a total unexplored area.
Has there been any experiments with airbags? I did find experiments with parachutes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdhrZbiK0T0), so safety seems to be a work-in-progress in order render that 1KG of deadweight into something more manageable.
Last, I must ask since this is a security issue, what is the statistics on this problem? Is a person flying a 1KG quadcopter in a crowded areas more dangerous than a person using bicycle in a city? The comparison is not perfect, but it would be nice to have some comparisons to other recreational activities performed in crowded areas.
Just curious. Are there RC multirotors that employ some other emergency measures than GPS-based navigation in case of lost connectivity, but can also survive fairly severe power, rotor or engine failures?
Judging from YouTube videos, autorotation doesn't seem to cut it - it's still falling too fast, but maybe something like deploying an emergency parachute - if altitude allows for it, or maybe (not sure if that's a sane thought) some inflatable wings to glide and thus not gain much vertical speed. Anything so it won't fall down like a brick.
You can't pull autorotation with fixed pitch blades, at least not in any meaningful manner. Light quads can fall pretty slowly with pinwheeling motors but that's not actually autorotation. The way a helicopter is able to autorotate is to pull negative pitch, which spins the rotors using the fall energy of the copter, then shortly before crashing pulling back to positive pitch and using the still spinning blades to slow down to a controlled landing.
For motor failure ETH Zurich has some research out there about recovering to normal(ish) flight after a prop loss. The quad goes into a pretty rapid spin but it's still controllable, link below to an outside the lab test.
There is indeed some work going on with failsafe parachute deployment and one or two commercially available solutions. So far they are not very popular from what I have seen being very much involved in the hobby.
What are the punishments for "taking down a quadcopter? Ever since seeing Bezos on 60 minutes, i keep thinking that this would be a good hobby. If the copter was just re-routed to a different locations and not harmed, would this still be a crime. Most likely.
I assume taking control of the machine with out permission would not be easy, but possible. Also a game show where the copters fight to the death would fill the void of "Robot Wars" being of TV.
Right now taking control is not that hard[1], since most quadcopters are unprotected, but I suspect more autonomous versions (which are supposed to fly without line-of-sight by the operator) will probably only accept encrypted and authenticated packets.
Parrot AR Drones work by creating a dedicated WiFi access point. It's not that hard to hack into. Because of the limited range of the WiFi signal, I'd still classify AR Drones as toys.
The vast majority of RC planes, cars, multirotors, etc. work with a 2.4Ghz transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX). In the old days you'd claim a frequency, put the corresponding crystal in your TX, and hope that nobody else would use that frequency. Nowadays we have Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) to ensure that you're not interfering with someone else's TX/RC. These signals are a lot more difficult to hijack.
Why do I get the impression that this guy was really, really, really lucky? Certainly more lucky than I'd imagine him being if he did a similar thing in the USA next to some FBI/CIA buildings.
I second the thought that the "newness" of the crime, the fact that he's a foreigner, and that he was very friendly and open when they questioned him was the saving grace. I've never been in really serious trouble with the police in China, but by-and-large they tend to be quite nice (assuming you're cooperating and plead idiocy).
Northern/Beijing police are also famous for their sense of humour.
He's lucky it was in China and not in the US and that he was not a chinese. I've had friends doing a strip tease in front of a group of cops, other smoke weed not far from a police station, and a lot of other stupid crap. The fact that you're a foreigner they will allow a lot of things.
Actually I had my fair share of police encounters in France as well and it never went bad. The last I remember was asking cops to take me in their cars to a club (I was completely drunk), they told me they were not a taxi company. I then told them they had to take me because I was inebriated, they just laughed at me and left.
In 2 weeks in the US I got arrested twice. Once for eating a sandwich 5meters from people drinking alcohol in the street. Then the second time, while I was going to court for that stupid shit I got arrested for going through the subway gate twice in less than 15 minutes even though I had an unlimited pass.
/rant over. Cops are cool in a lot of places. Not in the US.
> whats wrong with going twice through the subway gate?
They told me I was cheating the system. When really I was confused about what subway to take so I went back and asked the girl in the booth for help.
> ...
because I knew the people walking 5 meters ahead of me so I stopped to watch them getting arrested, and stayed 5 minutes around, so eventually they came towards me and my friends and arrested us also. We were so shocked we didn't ask why. Kept us an hour in the cold looking through our stuff etc... Tossed my sandwich to the ground (and I told them that it was littering) and finally convoked us to the court for "drinking in the streets".
I had the same thought. Not so much that he'd be treated worse in the US, but that the Chinese police seemed perfectly reasonable given the newness/strangeness of the "offense".
I was also pleasantly surprised he got the copter and camera back at the end.
I've been nabbed by police in China for walking in the wrong area with a camera. It's not the end of the world when it happens, they just have to make sure you're not some smart-ass intelligence agent trying to pull one over them. They're generally quite nice and just doing their job. I suspect the US and UK would be less lenient. China's actually surprisingly relaxed as long as you're a little bit adaptable.
Well, Chinese sky space is tightly regulated. If you are a law-abiding citizen, just try to learn them first, then post some article with less-misleading titles...
Er, depending on your country, they are different things. In the UK, you can be detained by police for a short period of time (e.g. during a stop-check or search on the street), but it isn't an arrest, you're "just" prevented from leaving whereever you are for a short period of time. If you are arrested, it means you are taken to a police station where a whole lot of rights/procedures/paperwork kicks in. Different countries have different points where they hit the dividing line between detaining and arresting.
> If you are arrested, it means you are taken to a police station where a whole lot of rights/procedures/paperwork kicks in. Different countries have different points where they hit the dividing line between detaining and arresting.
I'm not sure that's true. On every UK police program I've seen (mostly traffic-related - Road Wars, Police Interceptors, etc), frequently they'll arrest someone at the roadside, then de-arrest them when they've finished their inquiries.
This is the first time I've heard the term 'de-arrest', but it does indeed exist:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/01/law.emmabrockes
"According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest". Unlike being released with no further action, being de-arrested means that the record of the initial arrest is removed."
It's definitely true (I used to be a UK cop). While there are situations where you can de-arrest someone after arresting them, it's rare, and you do not need to place someone under arrest to detain them. Many (minor) crimes are not "arrestable" offences, for instance a cop cannot arrest you for littering. However he can detain you while he ascertains your identity in order to issue you with a fixed penalty notice (ticket), after which you are free to go and have not been arrested/de-arrested, merely detained. If you refuse to co-operate by giving your details, or he believes you may have given false ones that you can't back up with ID, he can then arrest you under PACE regulations and take you to the station to confirm your identify. But he can't arrest you for the littering. But he can detain you briefly.
On the police shows you mention, when the officer stops a car and takes the person into theirs to check their driving license, search them etc. they are detaining them. Only when they tell them they are under arrest are they actually under arrest, and they need reasonable grounds to suspect them of an arrestable offence before they can do that.
I wonder why second group stopped by, the explanation doesn't seem plausible to me... did you check the quadcopter for any signs of tampering? Anyway, nice shots!
I'm a model RC pilot for 20 years and these kind of "stunts" are hurting the hobby. At least ask for permission next time.
A phantom only has 4 motors, and the quality is "meh" - there is hardly any 2nd control (fa I have tripple recievers in my jets, if one RC system fails I still regain control over another radio).
It has a "failsafe" - i=even if it works it's still not really good in an urban area. GPS signals might be weak (flyaway danger) and it's only flies to 25 meters when returning to home. It could fly into a tower or even not reach proper 25 meter when the 3D GPS lock is weak or disengaged.
My 2 cents. Sorry. Please people, don't fly above crowded areas. I've seen a Phantom hit a car it's almost 1KG of deadweight when it comes down. It's only a matter of time until someone gets hurt.