5 ms·

I assume it's easier to think this kind of sentence is okay when you don't own a drone nor want to own one; it's why taxing cigarettes is the go-to funding tool

by zach417 10y ago

I assume it's easier to think this kind of sentence is okay when you don't own a drone nor want to own one; it's why taxing cigarettes is the go-to funding tool for increases in education spending. I don't smoke, so who cares? So, I'm assuming this is why the judge and attorney were so aggressive with the sentencing, but 30 days in jail is beyond the realm of reasonableness. I'm all for having the defendant pay restitution, but jail does no one any amount of good.

rlpb 10y ago
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it is illegal for a pilot of a manned aircraft to overfly a crowd below the height above which gliding clear is possible after an engine failure. In any case, the pilot needs a license to fly the aircraft at all, and getting one needs extensive training and demonstration of competence. Helicopters are "aircraft". Exceptions exist for medevac and police. This rule comes from a consideration of crowd safety. I'm not suggesting that exactly the same rigor must be applied so drones. After all they're smaller and likely to kill far fewer people after an accident involving a crowd. However, I think 30 days is entirely appropriate for someone who was reckless with people's lives under the circumstances. This assumes he was reckless; the article doesn't say if the court decided that.
- pc86 10y ago
  Flight student here - the US is 500' above "non-congested areas" and 1000' above "congested areas," however neither are strictly defined. As my instructor put it, "if you could land on someone's head, consider it congested." The except is air shows, where there is no minimum, and some special use areas such as Military Operations Areas. If you're operating a drone for commercial purposes you need a Private Pilot's License and UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) certificate. This guy owns an aerial photography company but it's not clear if the drone use was hobbyist in nature or if he was getting footage of the event for commercial purposes. Regardless, if he's found criminally liable due to how he operated the drone, it's almost a certainty that the FAA will be coming after every license he has.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > This assumes he was reckless; the article doesn't say if the court decided that. The first sentence of the article says exactly that: "A man who was found guilty of reckless endangerment after his drone injured two people during Seattle’s 2015 Pride Parade, including a woman knocked unconscious, was sentenced Friday to 30 days in jail."
msabalau 10y ago
Deterrence and retribution are typically seen as the purpose of incarceration. Presumably the threat of a month in prison might deter other drone operators from behaving recklessly and seriously injuring others. There are 2.2 million prisoners in the US. I don't know that the plight of the reckless rich endangering people with their $2000 toys is at the top of anyone's concern for sentencing reform, when people are being sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting under three strikes laws.
toss1 10y ago
I do own and build drones, and intend to use and sell them for commercial purposes. I totally support this severity of sentence, and would support an even harsher one. This guy was a complete idiot, flying with zero regard for any potential consequences. Not only could someone get hurt, they did. Could just as easily have been killed, just for this bad operator's amusement. Multirotor drones are inherently unstable. They cannot fly without a computer actively controlling every rotor on millisecond time scales. There are literally hundreds of items that can fail on the device that will instantly turn it into a falling brick with sharp edges (yes, I've counted them in a spreadsheet, and was astonished at the high number of potential failure points, an order of magnitude more than we expected). Once one of those items fails, it will accelerate downwards at 9.8 meters per second per second. Physics does not care about our intentions or sentiments. From 120 feet up it will land at 60 miles/hr, from 335 feet it'll hit at over 100 mph. Even a lightweight 2-3 Lb drone would kill at those speeds. The penalties for me driving by you at 60mph and tossing out a hard 2Lb object that happened to hit your head would be much more severe. Just because it is sold in the toy aisle does not mean that casual or stupid operation should be tolerated. This 'operator' was an idiot, hurt somebody, deserved all he got, and he's making it much more difficult for responsible people to use these devices. If you intend to operate these things, please be very aware of where it is going and all potential flight paths and potential falling paths. It isn't that difficult to simply do full pre-flight system checks, not fly over people or other valuable things, and take other safety measures. (also, re. your point about restitution, he might prefer 30 days in jail to paying the hospital bills, lost pay, lost time, etc. as restitution, tho I'd argue for both) edit: clarity, typos
- pc86 10y ago
  Slightly off-topic question but is a 2 pound drone capable of traveling 100mph in freefall? What determines/is its terminal velocity? As for the medical bills there is another hearing to determine how much he will need to pay the victim. I'd certainly argue for 100% of everything such that financially it's like it never happened.
  - jsight 10y ago
    My <.5 lb drone certainly has a terminal velocity that is well below 100mph. I've seen videos of similar ones free falling and crashing with virtually no damage to the drone itself, because the terminal velocity is relatively low. OTOH, the parent post appears to be someone who builds his own. Some race drones would likely have fairly impressive terminal velocities due to their compact, dense frames. I'm not sure what a common commercial one would fall like (Phantom, Mavic Pro, etc).
draw_down 10y ago
Disagree, this is irresponsible and dangerous and it has nothing to do with smoking.

by zach417 10y ago

rlpb 10y ago

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it is illegal for a pilot of a manned aircraft to overfly a crowd below the height above which gliding clear is possible after an engine failure. In any case, the pilot needs a license to fly the aircraft at all, and getting one needs extensive training and demonstration of competence. Helicopters are "aircraft". Exceptions exist for medevac and police. This rule comes from a consideration of crowd safety. I'm not suggesting that exactly the same rigor must be applied so drones. After all they're smaller and likely to kill far fewer people after an accident involving a crowd. However, I think 30 days is entirely appropriate for someone who was reckless with people's lives under the circumstances. This assumes he was reckless; the article doesn't say if the court decided that.

pc86 10y ago
Flight student here - the US is 500' above "non-congested areas" and 1000' above "congested areas," however neither are strictly defined. As my instructor put it, "if you could land on someone's head, consider it congested." The except is air shows, where there is no minimum, and some special use areas such as Military Operations Areas. If you're operating a drone for commercial purposes you need a Private Pilot's License and UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) certificate. This guy owns an aerial photography company but it's not clear if the drone use was hobbyist in nature or if he was getting footage of the event for commercial purposes. Regardless, if he's found criminally liable due to how he operated the drone, it's almost a certainty that the FAA will be coming after every license he has.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> This assumes he was reckless; the article doesn't say if the court decided that. The first sentence of the article says exactly that: "A man who was found guilty of reckless endangerment after his drone injured two people during Seattle’s 2015 Pride Parade, including a woman knocked unconscious, was sentenced Friday to 30 days in jail."

msabalau 10y ago

Deterrence and retribution are typically seen as the purpose of incarceration. Presumably the threat of a month in prison might deter other drone operators from behaving recklessly and seriously injuring others. There are 2.2 million prisoners in the US. I don't know that the plight of the reckless rich endangering people with their $2000 toys is at the top of anyone's concern for sentencing reform, when people are being sentenced to life in prison for shoplifting under three strikes laws.

toss1 10y ago

I do own and build drones, and intend to use and sell them for commercial purposes. I totally support this severity of sentence, and would support an even harsher one. This guy was a complete idiot, flying with zero regard for any potential consequences. Not only could someone get hurt, they did. Could just as easily have been killed, just for this bad operator's amusement. Multirotor drones are inherently unstable. They cannot fly without a computer actively controlling every rotor on millisecond time scales. There are literally hundreds of items that can fail on the device that will instantly turn it into a falling brick with sharp edges (yes, I've counted them in a spreadsheet, and was astonished at the high number of potential failure points, an order of magnitude more than we expected). Once one of those items fails, it will accelerate downwards at 9.8 meters per second per second. Physics does not care about our intentions or sentiments. From 120 feet up it will land at 60 miles/hr, from 335 feet it'll hit at over 100 mph. Even a lightweight 2-3 Lb drone would kill at those speeds. The penalties for me driving by you at 60mph and tossing out a hard 2Lb object that happened to hit your head would be much more severe. Just because it is sold in the toy aisle does not mean that casual or stupid operation should be tolerated. This 'operator' was an idiot, hurt somebody, deserved all he got, and he's making it much more difficult for responsible people to use these devices. If you intend to operate these things, please be very aware of where it is going and all potential flight paths and potential falling paths. It isn't that difficult to simply do full pre-flight system checks, not fly over people or other valuable things, and take other safety measures. (also, re. your point about restitution, he might prefer 30 days in jail to paying the hospital bills, lost pay, lost time, etc. as restitution, tho I'd argue for both) edit: clarity, typos

pc86 10y ago
Slightly off-topic question but is a 2 pound drone capable of traveling 100mph in freefall? What determines/is its terminal velocity? As for the medical bills there is another hearing to determine how much he will need to pay the victim. I'd certainly argue for 100% of everything such that financially it's like it never happened.
- jsight 10y ago
  My <.5 lb drone certainly has a terminal velocity that is well below 100mph. I've seen videos of similar ones free falling and crashing with virtually no damage to the drone itself, because the terminal velocity is relatively low. OTOH, the parent post appears to be someone who builds his own. Some race drones would likely have fairly impressive terminal velocities due to their compact, dense frames. I'm not sure what a common commercial one would fall like (Phantom, Mavic Pro, etc).

draw_down 10y ago

Disagree, this is irresponsible and dangerous and it has nothing to do with smoking.