Drone Pilots Association

[Bartman]

Just saw a reference to this on Facebook

http://dronepilotsassociation.com

It's the work of Peter Sachs whom you might recall started the website DroneLawJournal.com. It's disappointing to see our community without more sound leadership from within but I'm no better than anyone else as I haven't stepped up to start anything either. I suspect Peter sees an opportunity and he's taking it. He's claiming 600 sign-ups in the first 24 hours so maybe he'll find success and offer a sound representational option for commercial sUAS operators in the US.

It's my personal opinion that any industry group should be lead by democratically elected officers which has been my main ***** about the RCAPA which has finally decided to come back to life with a new website but still no governance by-laws and especially no indication that it's anything other than a for-profit topical entity.

Would love to hear how the rest of you feel about this. Is any leadership good leadership? Are there better options brewing? I would have loved to see the AUVSI start an sUAS specific sub-group within the larger AUVSI but it just hasn't happened.

Opinions?

 

[Bartman]

first impression was "ugh, drone blah blah blah blah blah". leads me to believe that the organizer is more interested in getting attention than representing people like me (or formerly like me) that detest the word "Drone" to describe sUAS class aircraft.

 

[tombrown1]

I've spoken with Peter on the phone. He seems to be a passionate guy who believes in the cause. Also pretty smart. I think he's probably the right guy for the job.

 

[Bartman]

i owe him an apology for the tone of my first post and I've since revised it to be less skeptical sounding.

if he's the guy then so be it but i really believe in governance from within and not many people will start an organization if there's a risk of them being voted out. we'll see how it goes.

bart

 

[Old Man]

There's definately the possibility the DPA could quickly be turned into a revenue generating entity, but the current membership would quickly abandon the association without clear evidence of immediate benefit. For the moment I'll withhold further judgement in that regard, OTH, there's strength in numbers, as the AOPA and ALPA discovered so long ago. It's extremely difficult to establish your strengths and weakness unless you first determine your potential assets. In this case the "assets" would be the number of people that have a similar dog in the hunt. People at our level are up against some real big money special interests and for now our only real leverage might be in numbers. However, responses to AMA and FAA websites condemning the proposed FAA stance is not very indicative of how many we really are, on both professional and amateur levels. Getting us all into one place could be a very good thing.

So this could be good, it could be bad, or be a little of both. Time will tell, and I don't think it will require much time for all truths to become evident. To have a Forbes person asked to become a member of the board suggests the odor of money, but we'll see. To be candid, I had been having thoughts of doing similar just to establish the weight necessary for a political action group that is needed to represent interests at our levels instead of only the upper end group like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, and General Atomics. A large part of the AUVSI is pandering to those corporate groups in order to peddle their wares, knowing they won't obtain military or government notice without first being sponsored/presented in some manner by one or more of the major defense based aerospace players. So, IMO, we should not expect much representation from the AUVSI. I could be wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[dazzab]

My first impressions weren't good so I'm going to reserve judgement for now. The DroneLawJournal just rubs me the wrong way for some reason. One thing I do know, and that is I will _never_ join an organisation with the name 'Drone' in it. Anyone who chooses that name is way out of touch IMHO. Yes, that's harsh but I choose not to be associated with military drones in any form.

 

[Old Man]

dazzab,

I totally agree with your position regarding the choice of the word "drone". What we fly in no way fits the description of the word drone. They are not programmed, launch and forget air vehicles that require no user input once set free. They are not targets to be destroyed once observed in flight. Having lived and worked both side of the civilian/military hardware fence I can empathize with your separation from the military side. Association in this area is the reason behind my reluctance and fear to see the more sophisticated hardware turned loose in a civilian environment. Those are completely for power and control. I've been a part of what the military side became and does and can find no legitimate place for them flying over my friends and family. A rabid dog will turn much too quickly on its master. OTH I've spent the better part of 50 years flying RC and well understand the benefits, and the joy, of being in control of a tool that can create a master of art when in the right hands. You made the right choice by rejecting the military side.

Sorry to side track but your post said much in a small space.

 

[tombrown1]

I've thought a lot about using the word drone. Used to be against it but now I'm not so sure.
I don't think the public sees it as just a military thing anymore. When i go to jobs and call my rig a remote controlled octocopter they look at me like a pedantic ahole. Drone is what the public knows these things as and it's not just negative. Some people I work for market our work as drone videos to their customers.

 

[stitch1615]

I've thought a lot about using the word drone. Used to be against it but now I'm not so sure.
I don't think the public sees it as just a military thing anymore. When i go to jobs and call my rig a remote controlled octocopter they look at me like a pedantic ahole. Drone is what the public knows these things as and it's not just negative. Some people I work for market our work as drone videos to their customers.

I believe you are wrong in that respect. People are led by the media who will never stop using the word drone as long as it gets a watchers attention and the "drone" label will ALWAYS be associated with the military.

"It's my personal opinion that any industry group should be lead by democratically elected officers",
Well you have to start somewhere.

 

[stitch1615]

Just saw a reference to this on Facebook

http://dronepilotsassociation.com

It's the work of Peter Sachs whom you might recall started the website DroneLawJournal.com. It's disappointing to see our community without more sound leadership from within but I'm no better than anyone else as I haven't stepped up to start anything either. I suspect Peter sees an opportunity and he's taking it. He's claiming 600 sign-ups in the first 24 hours so maybe he'll find success and offer a sound representational option for commercial sUAS operators in the US.

It's my personal opinion that any industry group should be lead by democratically elected officers which has been my main ***** about the RCAPA which has finally decided to come back to life with a new website but still no governance by-laws and especially no indication that it's anything other than a for-profit topical entity.

Would love to hear how the rest of you feel about this. Is any leadership good leadership? Are there better options brewing? I would have loved to see the AUVSI start an sUAS specific sub-group within the larger AUVSI but it just hasn't happened.

Opinions?

The only problem I have is I AM a hobbyist and I don't fly a "drone".
I have a firm belief that anyone who flies a "drone" see themselves as above all the hobbyist or some sort of para-militarist.
The negative connotations alone should want any of us to see the word stricken from the dictionary or at least not being used in reference to multi-rotors.
2 cents.

 

[Atomic Image]

Thanks for the link, I just joined. I think this is needed and its a good idea.

 

[tombrown1]

I believe you are wrong in that respect. People are led by the media who will never stop using the word drone as long as it gets a watchers attention and the "drone" label will ALWAYS be associated with the military.

"It's my personal opinion that any industry group should be lead by democratically elected officers",
Well you have to start somewhere.

Google drone, click on images and 5 of the first 10 pics are multis. The others are predators. The first pic is a Phantom, which in my mind is the now the 1st thing that comes to people's mind when they think drone.
So if you consider Google media, them they seem to think drone means multi.

Didn't used to be the case several months ago.

 

[Bartman]

Google drone, click on images and 5 of the first 10 pics are multis. The others are predators. The first pic is a Phantom, which in my mind is the now the 1st thing that comes to people's mind when they think drone.
So if you consider Google media, them they seem to think drone means multi.

Didn't used to be the case several months ago.

Tom,

Just asking because you're active in this thread, are you involved at all with this new organization or is Peter Sachs a one man show at the moment?

Bart

 

[tombrown1]

I'm not involved at all. I spoke with him several months ago once and that was it.

 

[tombrown1]

Sorry for all the hijacking about drone terminology.

 

[BenSkoning]

I do like this idea. However, if I was not in the hobby/business I would think of this in a very negative way simply because of the word "drone" in the title.

 

[Bartman]

i wrote to Peter personally last night telling him good luck but that the use of the word "drone" was a major indication that he's not one of us. it's an uncomfortable word for me to use to describe commercial sUAS operations to people that ask about it and incredibly short sighted for Peter to put it right there in the name of the organization. how is anyone to believe that he will be able to speak for us as an industry rep if he isn't able to relate to this very basic concern.

it also doesn't help that he says in the site header that the DPA represents the non-hobbyists users but then says he represents no one in the disclaimer on the front page.

:dejection:

 

[Mojave]

i wrote to Peter personally last night telling him good luck but that the use of the word "drone" was a major indication that he's not one of us. it's an uncomfortable word for me to use to describe commercial sUAS operations to people that ask about it and incredibly short sighted for Peter to put it right there in the name of the organization. how is anyone to believe that he will be able to speak for us as an industry rep if he isn't able to relate to this very basic concern.

it also doesn't help that he says in the site header that the DPA represents the non-hobbyists users but then says he represents no one in the disclaimer on the front page.

:dejection:

+1 ... agreed the word "drone" was a non-starter for me as well

 

[tombrown1]

It just doesn't bother me as much as it used to. See Steward/stewardess vs. flight attendant. Or waiter vs. server. Or masseuse vs. massage therapist. Maybe those aren't entirely accurate analogies, but the truth is that when people want what is being offered they will search for "drone photographer". Not "sUAS photographer". If you wants hits to your site you'd better put "drone" in there somewhere.
What should we call these things? I don't think people are as stupid as we give them credit for. When Joe Regular hears the word drone, he understands that there are variations - namely Phantoms and Predators. And whether he hears "sUAS" or "drone" it doesn't matter - he will either see its usefulness to him or he won't.
When the soccer mom sees these things she will call it a drone and say it is spying on her. When a real estate agent sees these things she will call it a drone and call the operator about using it for her business.
I think we are getting too worked up about terminology because we underestimate the public's intelligence.

For the record, I never call it a drone in public - but it's getting tiresome because every time I tell someone about my "remote controlled octocopter" they look at me like I'm being a snob and should call it a drone.

 

[Bartman]

no professional organization uses the slang reference for what they do.