Golf Channel Testing Out New Octo-copter Drone To Film Golfers This Weekend

An anonymous reader writes "In what seems like a surreal mixture of life imitating art, the Golf Channel has taken the wraps of a new camera drone. The hover camera appears to have 8 independent rotors supporting what looks like a gyro-stabilized HD camera. Though it is far from silent, the new drone will be on the course this week at the PGA Tour event taking place at Arnold Palmer Invitational at Bay Hill in Florida. No word on whether or not Lord Vader will be using these to monitor rebel activity on Hoth."

Comments

Re:Rules.

[wonkey_monkey]

If they fly them low enough that there's a possibility of that happening, I might actually consider watching golf.

Editors: missing an F?

[addie]

"Golf Channel has taken the wraps of a new camera drone"

And camera drone wants its wraps back!

The noise will be unacceptable

[EmagGeek]

That thing's gonna be loud, so unless it's really far away and they have huge long glass on the camera, the players aren't going to have any part of it.

Re:The noise will be unacceptable

[amicusNYCL]

From the video on the page, the sound roughly equals about 10,000 angry hornets. No way anyone could focus on a golf swing with that thing hovering right behind them.

Re:The noise will be unacceptable

[girlintraining]

I would argue that golf requires a level of focus when you're hitting that those other sports do not require.

You're saying that it takes less concentration to throw an oddly-shaped chunk of leather at an erratically moving target, in a wide variety of weather conditions, while a half dozen people who are built like a brick house try to attack you, while wearing a face mask and forty pounds of protective gear, and quite possibly doing this while in a degree of physical pain that would cause many to curl up in a corner and whimper "make it stop", than it does to hit a ball with a club on a warm sunny day, wearing naught but some light cotton clothing and a hat?

You'll pardon me if I'm somewhat incredulous at your claim.

Basically though, it really just comes down to respect.

I don't think you're showing very much respect at all to the people that take concussions, broken bones, and all manner of other physical injury, just so you can be entertained. A golfer is usually an affluent white guy, walking around a giant park, and the only hazards he faces are inanimate natural objects that, in the worst case, will cause him to lose his ball. In football, the hazards are angry men who want to crush your bones into dust and scream obscenities while they chase you.

Re: I wonder who's legally liable?

[skitchen8]

Do you know the FAA has no legal authority over what happens below 400' above private land far enough away from an airport. I can say posting ignorant bullshit on Slashdot is illegal, that doesn't mean I have any authority. Did you know that there are guys that operate those little 2/3 channel helicopters inside of malls every day for commercial purposes? Correct title for article: PGA uses camera to film things. Or: Someone flies RC helicopter. Troll article is troll.

Re:Screw golf

[bfmorgan]

Look at http://www.parallax.com/Store/Robots/FlyingPlatforms/tabid/964/ProductID/799/List/0/Default.aspx?SortField=ProductName,ProductName

OT: TFA

[Geste]

I am looking at how many cookies and scripts NoScript thinks I need to OK in order to get the full BusinessInsider.com experience. As they say: *plonk*

Re:Rules.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They make an awful lot of noise, but what about the rules? If a ball hits the copter is it a 'natural' obstacle, does it count if it bounces off the copter into the hole?

I believe the rules are the same as for a ball hitting a hang-glider passing by.

Re: I wonder who's legally liable?

[Jinker]

The 400' exemption in the FARs is *specifically* for hobbiest use. Commercial use is plainly not 'hobby' use. The National airspace system, and all the craft operating within it, and the FAAs authority to regulate its use do not magically start at 400 feet.

The design

[K8Fan]

Look closely at the image. This thing was designed by someone very dedicated to steampunk aesthetic.

Re: I wonder who's legally liable?

[asynchronous13]

Do you know the FAA has no legal authority over what happens below 400' above private land far enough away from an airport.

You should really let the FAA know that. Four days ago they grounded an aerial photographer in Minnesota for using an r/c aircraft commercially. FAA grounds Twin Cities aerial photographer over use of drones

Re:I wonder who's legally liable?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal to fly a commercial UAV for any reason in the US...mostly. The FAA has not yet (or may never) issued a COA (Certificate of Authorization) to a civilian company. Mainly just government agencies, etc. Everything else you read about line of sight, and a pilot at the controls at all times does pertain, but it is mostly for hobbyists out on a weekend as long as they stay below the ceiling height which can vary from place to place. One way we have gotten around this rule is to have an actual heli pilot at the controls...this seems to quiet down the FAA. On the other hand, if you have enough money and lawyers, you can try to obtain a Special Airworthiness Certificate - Experimental Category (SAC-EC), but I have never met anyone or a civilian company that has gotten one of these.

Re:I wonder who's legally liable?

[asynchronous13]

I'll refer you to Public Law 112-95 - note the bold section.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

• (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
  • (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
  • (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
  • (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
  • (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
  • (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
• (b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
• (c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
  • (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
  • (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
  • (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Re: I wonder who's legally liable?

[asynchronous13]

The FARs do not ever specify 400' for anything. That comes from safety guidelines published by a big model aircraft club. It has no weight of law.

Re:I wonder who's legally liable?

[rocket rancher]

Dude, I'll see your PL 112-95 and raise you HR 658. :) Make sure you check out section 332. This bill has already passed, btw -- it's the law of the land. The FAA has until 2015 to come up with rules to integrate civil drone use into US airspace. Until the FAA does that and publishes them, the commercial use of drones can't be characterized as illegal or legal. But that's okay, when it comes to liability torts -- liability can be established independently of the legality of the act that caused the damage. It doesn't matter if the driver that ran over your roses had a license or not -- he still ran over your roses and you can litigate them for compensation.