RENO, Nev. — Flying low, through a truss bridge, under a Union Pacific train, and even in a box car are just a few of the stunts a drone pilot shows off in a YouTube video while a mixed UP freight is in motion. The video, embedded above, went…
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/09/22-drone-flight
And our drone is stuck in a tree in the back yard … 
What a potential for people with bad intentions …
Or a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Need to add a couple of these to every train
U.P. rules say this: “Union Pacific will seek removal from publication any photograph or video that violates this policy.” They are referring to their published policy on photography.
I assume that includes publication of the video as shown here in the Newswire piece. How would U.P. go about the process of removing the video from publication?
Does a radio-controlled model airplane qualify as a drone?
Most of the video hosting sites have a link somewhere on their pages for contacting them about legal problems (copyright violations, inappropriate content, etc.). All U.P. needs to do is contact them and explain the reason for requesting the removal of the video. Some sites might balk at the request, claiming “free speach”, etc., but most will comply quickly. The original poster can then counter with a request for reinstating the video… there are arbitration procedures beyound that.
As far as I know, no they don’t. R/C airplanes can’t do what drones do, well R/C helicopters can, but R/C airplanes have been around for decades and to my knowledge they’re never flown out of sight of the operator. It’s only common sense, since they tend to be expensive when purchased “over-the-counter” or if hand-built the owners don’t get crazy with them considering the amount of time and money they’ve got invested.
I’ve never heard of any incident with R/C airplanes like we hear of with drones.
A friend of mine from high school was into R/C airplanes and occasionally I’d go to the field his club flew from and it was quite a sight to see. All the operators flew very responsibly, and the only incidents I saw happened when two operators were controlling the planes on the same frequency. That didn’t happen too often, the results could be catastrophic for both planes! I should add the field wasn’t near any airport or flight path for real airplanes and the R/C planes didn’t fly any higher than 100 or so feet off the ground.
Now what would have happened if that drone crashed into and broke an air hose connection, or say hit a handbrake just hard enough to partially set the brakes on a car in the consist?
I think the FAA should bust the guy and fine him or have him do time.
Or the poster, can repost the video again directly, starting the whole process over, it would probably take a time or two of that cycle before youtube, blocked his posting priviledges, or reviewing his posts before activating them.
Doug
The aircraft must be a registered drone aircraft if it weights more the 55 lbs.
An FAA drone pilot license is required if flying an unmanned aircraft for commercial benefit.
But even unmanned vehicles are required to be flown within “Visual line-of-sight” amoung other limitations including “No careless or reckless operations”.
i don’t know if the FAA can do anything more than prevent him from getting a license or suspend his license.
However, the railroad can probably prosecute for trespassing in the same way that an RC pilot is responsible for any damage their model may cause in a crash.
perhaps the video is being used as a demo for a commercial job.
As a drone pilot myself, I find this flight to be disrespectful of Union Pacific’s property and operations, even if it isn’t illegal.
As with anything in life, just because it is legal doesn’t mean it is right. I think in this case the pilot crossed the line between right-to-fly and disrespecting Union Pacific’s operations by potentially interfearing with the train’s operations - at the very least pissing off the train crew.
The chance for somebody to purposefuly misuse these aircraft has nothing to do with this flight, however, if he for instance were to accidentially trigger an emergency application, if he crashed or flew into the air lines by mistake between cars, then this could cause huge issues. Surely though, most of the risk was to the guy’s own craft, but he’s a well-know drone racer who obviously has incredible skills - but this probably wasn’t the best way to show them off.
Now as to Union Pacific’s “drone policy”, it’s obvious that while they have the right to control who takes off or lands on their property - which is trespassing otherwise, their policy is not legal when it comes to “flying over” their land. Union Pacific, nor anybody else, owns the airspace above them. While I accept UP’s right to their own property, they do not control the airspace above, and thus it is completely legal to fly over their land, so long as you follow the FAA and any local regulations, without UP’s advance permission, as they seem to require in their policy statement.
Alex,
If I may take exception there is a huge difference between ‘pilot’ and ‘operator’. Given the FAA’s defination drone operators are not pilots.
Which is why I called users of drones or hobbyists with R/C airplanes “operators” and not “pilots.”
I’m a traditionalist, if that aircraft ain’t strapped to your backside you ain’t a pilot.
No disrepect intended to the flyers of R/C airplanes. From what I’ve heard from those who’ve done both, sometimes flying it R/C versions is harder than flying the real thing.
this summary of FAR part-107, says “establishes a new remote pilot in command position”. The FAA requires passing a written and practical exam for a “remote pilot rating”.
are you suggesting the FAA should have call it a “remote operator rating”?
As a previous poster stated, I don’t thik there is sufficient mass in a drone to break an air hose connection or handbrake. The drones I have seen are quite fragile and would shatter (or bounce off) when impacting anything on a train. The U.P. would have a case of tresspass for when the drone entered the boxcar, flew under the train, or when it flew through the bridge.
It is a lot like the person in the cab of a train and in charge of the operation of the engine… in America they are an “Engineer”, but in other countries they are the “Driver”… the word “Engineer” is a hold over from when the person operating the engine was the person that designed the engine (and probably was in charge of the manufacture)… he was the “Engineer” (operator) because only he knew how. Later when someone else was placed in charge of the operation of the engine they took the same “title” (at least in America).
A “Pilot” is a person in charge of the direction a vehicle will travel… As a Verb, it means to control the direction of something. In a harbor, a ship will be placed in the control of a “Pilot” to get it from the harbor entrance to the berth (and vice versa), but he is not the “Captian” nor is he the person operating the controls!
I “Pilot” my car when I am the driver… you might also be the pilot of your car, unless your wife is telling you where to go (my wife threw me away after telling me where to go, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion).
I can see where the FAA had to make a tighter definition of “Pilot” and “Operator” and “Observer” to clarify the roles of each… but for common-man discussions, one should understand that the fellow on the ground with the R/C controls in his hand is the Pilot of the Unmanned Airborne Vehicle.
Fair enough. They’re the FAA, they make the rules, they can call the operator whatever they like.
I’m still calling them operators.
I’m 100% with Firelock.
We have a drone for our Engineering and Geology department’s and the fellow that has the, now required, ticket to operate the drone, is called a pilot.
Anyone calling that pinhead a pilot is out of their mind. We have real pilots up here, bush pilots that land on the water all summer and on the ice with skis during the winter…plus the fellows piloting the water bombers…now those fellas are Pilots…not that half baked clown that OPERATES our drone.
Thanks Miningman, I was hoping for some hard-won common sense from north of the border.
Yeah, those guys you describe are PILOTS! I’d suspect a drone operator calling himself a pilot in their presense would have the facts of life explained to him right quick.