The word "drone" entered the popular lexicon via early media hype over the rise of military recon & attack UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) around the turn of the millennium. Originally the term was a reference to the sound and "dumb" flight characteristics of UAVs, which resembled that of male bees. A decade later, media again mucked with the English language by applying the term to any and all multi-rotor remote-controlled aircraft, including cheap toy versions, regardless of capabilities. Many ignorant news reports would even call single-rotor RC helicopters & airplanes "drones" and use quadcopter visual references because that's what they had gotten the public temporarily worked up about (with worries over privacy & safety). Now LEGO has picked up this linguistic misappropriation and applied it to a model of a flying vehicle that's clearly supposed to be operated by an onboard pilot. In other words, it's just an aircraft. To be more specific you could call it a twin-rotor helicopter or bicopter, but it's not a "drone" by any stretch.
That concludes today's unsolicited lesson. For weekend homework, write a 500-word essay on the the legal and ethical precedents for government regulation of remotely-piloted model aircraft for commercial vs. recreational use. Pass/fail grading will be used.
:)
Way to go Jang. It is amazing how people just fall in line with using words/expressions without questioning them.
ReplyDeleteSaying that you operate a drone, for some reason, sounds cool. Saying that you are an R/C aircraft enthusiast has you painted as a geek.