6 ms·

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good example (see the description): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0 The vast majority of drone users won't bother looking up the aviation charts to see if they are inside a control zone or other controlled airspace, and won't have any idea how far away they are from an airport.

Zigurd 11y ago
As soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.
- sosborn 11y ago
  If we argue that regulations don't stop criminals (DRM etc) then doesn't it also hold true that regulations wouldn't stop do-gooders? (sorry, not the best word).
  - iamnothere 11y ago
    It wouldn't stop activists from filming "restricted" areas, no, but it could give authorities a way to tack on additional charges ("terroristic disabling of an aviation safety device" or the like) when they inevitably find the person who leaked the video.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Another slippery slope argument. We're talking purely about controlled airspace here. Those things you mention have never been controlled airspace.
  - setra 11y ago
    In general the slippery slope is not actually a fallacy.
  - jdietrich 11y ago
    British law is very restrictive on the use of camera-equipped UAVs. Without specific permission from the CAA, it is unlawful to use a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 150 metres of "any congested area" or within 50 metres of "any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft".
  - jle17 11y ago
    It's a common tactic used by governments to push a restriction under a (often emotional) motive that looks legitimate at first and then extend it further. "We need to do this or that because terrorism and won't somebody please think of the children." "Well, now that it's in place, it would be a shame not to use it against illegal <insert something harmless or subversive here>." And usually they manage to design laws so that diverting their use doesn't require passing through parliament again.
kawsper 11y ago
I fly my quadcopter in the UK. It would be nice to have an app that told me about the airspace I was in based on my current position. However, right now I am not flying higher than 10 meters from the ground.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Round up a team and put it in the ApplyHN sector - that could be a really useful, pay-for-app & updates type service. Definitely has value. The target market should be able to see the cost-benefit I presume. Good thinking!
  - nathancahill 11y ago
    Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.
    - tremguy 11y ago
      I guess that's how most startups get started AFAIK?
      - nathancahill 11y ago
        Unfortunately yes, which is why you get founders awkwardly trying to answer questions like.. "How does your product compare to X and Y that are dominating the space right now?" when they've never heard of X or Y.
        jtuente 11y ago
        > Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space. All that without specifying whether or not you have knowledge in the space. You probably should have specified X and Y are already in the space rather than assuming that someone already has taken up space there.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DonaldFisk 11y ago
They should still know the relevant law instead of relying on technology. There isn't that much you need to know. In the UK, article 166 and potentially article 167 of the Air Navigation Order (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=226 http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&m...) are relevant. In any case, the drone should be within line of sight, lower than 400 feet above ground level, and not be in controlled airspace or near an airport (which should be checked on an aeronautical chart - they're only about £25 and look good on your wall). This gives a quick summary of both articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-you-need-to-know-to-fly-domestic-drones-legally-a6994291.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-... And bear in mind that there are cases where pilots might be flying light aircraft well below 400 feet AGL away from an aerodrome: during ag operations (crop dusting), during a forced landing, or during a practice forced landing under instruction, so even with the ANO rules there's still potential (albeit unlikely) conflict.

Zigurd 11y ago

As soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.

sosborn 11y ago
If we argue that regulations don't stop criminals (DRM etc) then doesn't it also hold true that regulations wouldn't stop do-gooders? (sorry, not the best word).
- iamnothere 11y ago
  It wouldn't stop activists from filming "restricted" areas, no, but it could give authorities a way to tack on additional charges ("terroristic disabling of an aviation safety device" or the like) when they inevitably find the person who leaked the video.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cpncrunch 11y ago
Another slippery slope argument. We're talking purely about controlled airspace here. Those things you mention have never been controlled airspace.
- setra 11y ago
  In general the slippery slope is not actually a fallacy.
- jdietrich 11y ago
  British law is very restrictive on the use of camera-equipped UAVs. Without specific permission from the CAA, it is unlawful to use a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 150 metres of "any congested area" or within 50 metres of "any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft".
- jle17 11y ago
  It's a common tactic used by governments to push a restriction under a (often emotional) motive that looks legitimate at first and then extend it further. "We need to do this or that because terrorism and won't somebody please think of the children." "Well, now that it's in place, it would be a shame not to use it against illegal <insert something harmless or subversive here>." And usually they manage to design laws so that diverting their use doesn't require passing through parliament again.

kawsper 11y ago

I fly my quadcopter in the UK. It would be nice to have an app that told me about the airspace I was in based on my current position. However, right now I am not flying higher than 10 meters from the ground.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Round up a team and put it in the ApplyHN sector - that could be a really useful, pay-for-app & updates type service. Definitely has value. The target market should be able to see the cost-benefit I presume. Good thinking!
- nathancahill 11y ago
  Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.
  - tremguy 11y ago
    I guess that's how most startups get started AFAIK?
    - nathancahill 11y ago
      Unfortunately yes, which is why you get founders awkwardly trying to answer questions like.. "How does your product compare to X and Y that are dominating the space right now?" when they've never heard of X or Y.
      - jtuente 11y ago
        > Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space. All that without specifying whether or not you have knowledge in the space. You probably should have specified X and Y are already in the space rather than assuming that someone already has taken up space there.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

DonaldFisk 11y ago

They should still know the relevant law instead of relying on technology. There isn't that much you need to know. In the UK, article 166 and potentially article 167 of the Air Navigation Order (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=226 http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&m...) are relevant. In any case, the drone should be within line of sight, lower than 400 feet above ground level, and not be in controlled airspace or near an airport (which should be checked on an aeronautical chart - they're only about £25 and look good on your wall). This gives a quick summary of both articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-you-need-to-know-to-fly-domestic-drones-legally-a6994291.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-... And bear in mind that there are cases where pilots might be flying light aircraft well below 400 feet AGL away from an aerodrome: during ag operations (crop dusting), during a forced landing, or during a practice forced landing under instruction, so even with the ANO rules there's still potential (albeit unlikely) conflict.