5 ms·

As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area, what I want to know is since when did ignorance of the

As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area, what I want to know is since when did ignorance of the law become a defense from it? I wouldn't be allowed to murder someone and then hide behind that excuse. Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted.

grubles 11y ago
Clearly murder is way way way more widely known to be illegal. That isn't a good example. The article doesn't even mention the laws the RC helicopter pilot could have broken.
- blizkreeg 11y ago
  If the helicopter had crashed, killing people on the street and the pilot, does that make it a good example?
  - grubles 11y ago
    The issue is what law(s) did the RC heli pilot break? A part of that issue is making RC pilots aware of the limits of their flying.
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      These drones come with information and resources for responsible and legal flight. Depending on where you buy it, you may also be encouraged to review that information before you even make the purchase. I agree the author of the article should also have done his research and helped to spread the word (as should the CHP officer whose only advice was to use "common sense" - which is different for a CHP officer than it is for the common person).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
shkkmo 11y ago
> Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted. There isn't any law to throw (most of) them in jail under. The FAA guidelines the operator violated carry civil, not criminal penalties. Flying model aircraft could conceivably result in Reckless Endangerment or Manslaughter charges. However I doubt that most violations of the FAA guidelines warrant such charges.
- click170 11y ago
  It seems your right. And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before anything will change.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    Unlike gun laws?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Where did that come from? Please don't try to derail the conversation like this.
      - bigiain 11y ago
        Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get misconstrued, even if I'd made it well.) People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm. But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks loose. How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?
        cgriswald 11y ago
        Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions at all. For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas. Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters. So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."
aaron695 11y ago
> As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area I call bullshit. If you really had 'close calls' in you area, then across the country/world and all the airports there would have been a drone strike by now. I can't find any evidence of that. And even if/when one accidentally strikes, there's no evidence people will die. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/what-might-happen-if-airliner-hit-small-drone http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/wh...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Sea planes aren't all that common. Your article suggests that there is a pretty decent risk of a crash following a collision with a drone of this size.

grubles 11y ago

Clearly murder is way way way more widely known to be illegal. That isn't a good example. The article doesn't even mention the laws the RC helicopter pilot could have broken.

blizkreeg 11y ago
If the helicopter had crashed, killing people on the street and the pilot, does that make it a good example?
- grubles 11y ago
  The issue is what law(s) did the RC heli pilot break? A part of that issue is making RC pilots aware of the limits of their flying.
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    These drones come with information and resources for responsible and legal flight. Depending on where you buy it, you may also be encouraged to review that information before you even make the purchase. I agree the author of the article should also have done his research and helped to spread the word (as should the CHP officer whose only advice was to use "common sense" - which is different for a CHP officer than it is for the common person).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

shkkmo 11y ago

> Throw these people in jail until the message gets across that unsafe flying is not tolerated regardless of the aircraft being piloted. There isn't any law to throw (most of) them in jail under. The FAA guidelines the operator violated carry civil, not criminal penalties. Flying model aircraft could conceivably result in Reckless Endangerment or Manslaughter charges. However I doubt that most violations of the FAA guidelines warrant such charges.

click170 11y ago
It seems your right. And it deeply saddens me to think that it may cost someone's life before anything will change.
- bigiain 11y ago
  Unlike gun laws?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Where did that come from? Please don't try to derail the conversation like this.
    - bigiain 11y ago
      Just trying to point out a seeming lack of perspective. Not trying to derail things (but, in retrospect, I suppose that argument inevitably would get misconstrued, even if I'd made it well.) People fear drone incidents may possibly harm or kill someone - without any concrete evidence of actual harm. But threaten the "right to arm bears", and from some corners all hell breaks loose. How does that work? Why are drones even something that gets discussed in the context of improving personal safety when there's _so_ much other low hanging fruit where real differences could be made?
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        Guns aren't exactly low-hanging fruit. If you actually separate out acts of violence by motivation, goal, or type of violence, rather than by the weapon used, you will see that solutions based on restricting guns are not solutions at all. For instance, the current hysteria surrounds mass shootings. But statistically you're about as likely to get struck by lightning. And in places where guns are restricted, its true they don't have mass shootings as often, but that's only because we are defining the act based on the weapon used. The actual class of the attack-mass murder/assault-continues, but using a different weapon, such as arson or poison gas. Gun deaths are also lumped together as well, so suicides and self defense are treated the same way as unarmed murder, which also muddies the waters. So "how it works" is that people are irrational when it comes to fear and risk and their instinct is to "kill" whatever it is that makes them fearful. In the case of drones, no one feels particularly strongly in favor of free range drones (and such a situation ultimately is untenable anyway) so there isn't a lot of push back. In the case of guns, not only do many people have strong, reasoned arguments why guns should not be (more) restricted, but they also possess the same irrationality about fear and risk, thus "all hell breaks loose."

aaron695 11y ago

> As someone who occasionally takes sea planes, which have already had close calls with drones in my area I call bullshit. If you really had 'close calls' in you area, then across the country/world and all the airports there would have been a drone strike by now. I can't find any evidence of that. And even if/when one accidentally strikes, there's no evidence people will die. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/what-might-happen-if-airliner-hit-small-drone http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/wh...

mikeash 11y ago
Sea planes aren't all that common. Your article suggests that there is a pretty decent risk of a crash following a collision with a drone of this size.