22 ms·
Thursday night Mountain View power outage the result of a drone crash
- hellbanner 9y agoThanks for sharing. More evidence that power lines should be under ground. Can you really not fly your drone "around people"? I thought you could fly in parks.
- devwastaken 9y agoI thought power lines, in contact with the dirt, can make the ground electrocutive.
- WJW 9y agoPerhaps I don't understand what you mean by electrocutive, not being a native English speaker and all, but in my home country of the Netherlands over 90% of power lines have been underground since the 50s without any ill effects...
- k-mcgrady 9y agoInsulate them?
- verall 9y agoThe cost of insulating a 765kV power line is prohibitively high. Although in the modern day it might make sense to move more low voltage power lines underground than did previously.
- astrodust 9y agoPlus unless that insulation is made of something we haven't invented yet it's bound to flake and peel off in time.
- trentmb 9y agoDowned power lines, yes.
- benzofuran 9y agoIt creates a voltage gradient radiating out from the contact point. A gradient of more than 15VAC/m is generally bad news. The resistance can be enough to prevent automatic circuit protections from tripping as well if there's not a high current, such as dry high-resistance soil.
- thomasgaukel 9y agoYou can fly your drone around people as long as those people don't include me.
- eugenejen 9y agoof course underground power lines will be more expensive for the moment. So will drones produce more values than the cost to invest on underground power lines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergrounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergrounding Advantages Less subject to damage from severe weather conditions (mainly lightning, wind and freezing) Reduced range of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emission, into the surrounding area. However depending on the depth of the underground cable, greater emf may be experienced.[2] The electric current in the cable conductor produces a magnetic field, but the closer grouping of underground power cables reduces the resultant external magnetic field and further magnetic shielding may be provided. See Electromagnetic radiation and health. Underground cables need a narrower surrounding strip of about 1–10 meters to install (up to 30 m for 400 kV cables during construction), whereas an overhead line requires a surrounding strip of about 20–200 meters wide to be kept permanently clear for safety, maintenance and repair. Underground cables pose no hazard to low flying aircraft or to wildlife. Much less subject to conductor theft, illegal connections,[3] sabotage, and damage from armed conflict. Burying utility lines makes room for more large trees on sidewalks,[4] which convey environmental benefits and increase property values [5] Disadvantages: Undergrounding is more expensive, since the cost of burying cables at transmission voltages is several times greater than overhead power lines, and the life-cycle cost of an underground power cable is two to four times the cost of an overhead power line. Above ground lines cost around $10 per foot and underground lines cost in the range of $20 to $40 per foot.[6] In highly urbanized areas the cost of underground transmission can be 10-14 times as expensive as overhead.[7] Whereas finding and repairing overhead wire breaks can be accomplished in hours, underground repairs can take days or weeks,[8] and for this reason redundant lines are run. Underground cable locations are not always obvious, which can lead to unwary diggers damaging cables or being electrocuted. Operations are more difficult since the high reactive power of underground cables produces large charging currents and so makes voltage control more difficult.[citation needed] Whereas overhead lines can easily be uprated by modifying line clearances and power poles to carry more power, underground cables cannot be uprated and must be supplemented or replaced to increase capacity. Transmission and distribution companies generally future-proof underground lines by installing the highest-rated cables while being still cost-effective. Underground cables are more subject to damage by ground movement. The 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand caused damage to 360 kilometres (220 mi) of high voltage underground cables and subsequently cut power to large parts of Christchurch city, whereas only a few kilometres of overhead lines were damaged, largely due to pole foundations being compromised by liquefaction. The advantages can in some cases outweigh the disadvantages of the higher investment cost, and more expensive maintenance and management.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Raphmedia 9y agoHere are the rules in Canada: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/Infographic_-_New_rules_for_recreational_drone_users_EN_2.pdf https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/Infographic_-... "[Do not fly your drone:] closer than 75 m from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds"
- bdamm 9y agoIn the US the law is that you MUST fly your drone within 121 meters of buildings, vessels, or the ground.
- king_magic 9y agoWithin 121 meters? Which law is this?
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago> In the US the law is that you MUST fly your drone within 121 meters of buildings, vessels, or the ground. That's true! Except just the ground, not buildings or vessels. So, not true at all.
- raverbashing 9y agoYes they should be That being said, it's still the responsibility of the operator to not collide with anything in the air
- joering2 9y agoThats most likely heavy guarded by lobbyist. On average while in transmit, power companies get 20% more of electricity just by putting cables in the air.
- slm_HN 9y agoNo, you cannot fly your drone over people. The exception being surveying construction sites as it is assumed that people on construction sites are already wearing hard hats. Ironically parks, which would be an ideal place to fly, are often no-fly zones. For example all national parks in America ban drones as do many state parks.
- loeg 9y ago> Ironically parks, which would be an ideal place to fly, are often no-fly zones. For example all national parks in America ban drones as do many state parks. That doesn't stop people, in my experience.
- astrange 9y agoMost parks I've seen people try to fly in near SFBA are no-fly zones because they're too close to airports.
- m-j-fox 9y agoMy office is pretty-much on the runway of SJC and the vacant lot next door is a favorite for lunchtime RC enthusiasts.
- mtanski 9y agoGoogle search for "drone national park" and you'll find out why.
- pgrote 9y ago"Why did the NPS restrict unmanned aircraft? The National Park Service embraces many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care. However, due to serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft can have for safety of visitors, staff, and wildlife, they have been restricted in all but a few parks."
- 9y ago
- patorjk 9y agoYou can fly them around people, you're just not supposed to fly them over people [1]. However, if you're flying commercially, you can get a wavier for this. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
- robbyking 9y agoInterestingly enough, almost all transmission lines in San Francisco are underground; almost all of what you see overhead are either telephone/cable, or overhead wires for powering MUNI, our municipal light rail.
- astrodust 9y agoLong-haul lines in North America are rarely buried, the cost is too high. One notable exception is Quebec's grid which, after the disatrous 1998 ice storm which brought down a huge portion of their lines, buried them to avoid a similar catastrophe in the future.
- evilDagmar 9y agoTennessee had the same thing happen at about the same time. They still aren't burying power lines.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lavezzi 9y agoI mean wouldn't that be an issue for areas with tectonic activity? I wouldn't imagine they would be as easy to repair if they were under ground.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago> More evidence that power lines should be under ground. I agree in principle, and there are places that do this, but there are a lot of practical considerations too. A neat story about what it's like when there's a failure in a big underground line: https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/archive/high-power https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/archive/high-power In California, you have problems with tectonic movement -- even small fault activity will stretch, relocate, and damage buried lines. In nearly everywhere else, you have underground water tables seeping in around your buried lines. None of these are insurmountable, but they don't make it an easy job either.
- hellbanner 9y agoDIdn't consider tectonic movement, good points
- e9 9y agoInteresting how they call this illegal because airport is within 5 miles. Airport is almost unrelated to this particular situation but I guess it's a concrete way to make person liable.
- dmitrygr 9y agoThe law states that FAA owns airspace and that flying within 5nm of towered airport without contacting tower is illegal. Simple.
- foone 9y agoI checked, and that means it's basically illegal to fly a drone in the bay area: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB54FczUQAEQ5D6.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB54FczUQAEQ5D6.jpg:large
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dmitrygr 9y agoThat is correct except for places like pacifica
- dionidium 9y agoIt's not just the Bay Area. The restrictions and FAA guidelines are written in a way that prohibits almost all recreational flying in urban areas. I don't think I've seen a single widely-shared drone video that wasn't afoul of the law.
- milkthefat 9y agoDepending on your definition of widely-shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9KY3lNeBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9KY3lNeBc
- arnarbi 9y ago.. without notifying the airport, yes. You can fly within 5 miles if you give them notice (it can be a voicemail/email).
- dmitrygr 9y agoI hope they find the perp and hand him a reasonable jail sentence. A few decades should do. You CANNOT fly anything within 5nm of a towered airport without first contacting their tower. This was within 3nm of KNUQ. This time he only hit a power line. Next time he'll collide with one of those 4-engine WW2-era trainer planes they fly out if KNUQ for practice at 500AGL...
- cornstalks 9y agoFor anyone else who might be slightly confused (like I initially was), "nm" here means "nautical mile"[1], not "nanometer". [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
- SilasX 9y agoThank you! I was about to say, "yes, you cannot fly within 5 nanometers, due to Pauli exclusion forces..."
- matt-attack 9y agoAre you serious that you would advocate for a multi-decade sentence for what this man did?
- dmitrygr 9y agoHe could have brought down a plane on landing (moffet field flies planes low over mountain view often), cut power to a hospital, had the broken line kill someone. This action was easily more dangerous to society and those around him than driving a tank on city streets while drunk Yes I am serious.
- ghaff 9y agoI think there should be a serious punishment but lengthy jail time may not be the best answer. I would fully support some period of house arrest, lengthy community service, and whopping big fines.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- maliker 9y agoI bet 10 bucks that this gets written in to a Silicon Valley episode this season.
- manningthegoose 9y agoProbably next season. This season's already been shot.
- Mz 9y agoSo, you just blew an easy ten bucks... ;-)
- cdibona 9y agoWe have a bunch of drones in the title cartoon thing...
- thaumaturgy 9y agoIgnoring the usual argument over drones vs. public safety: It is absurd that in the US in 2017 this kind of damage can be caused by flying a relatively cheap device too close to power infrastructure. For the cost of a large-scale terrorist attack (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/06/25/325240653/how-much-does-a-terrorist-attack-cost-a-lot-less-than-you-think http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/06/25/325240653/h...), a group of people could shut down a lot of public infrastructure in a lot of metropolitan areas, causing a lot of mayhem, and likely get away with it. This seems like the kind of critical weakness of infrastructure that the current administration is supposed to be focusing on fixing.
- taeric 9y agoWhat is your suggestion? By and large, society has gotten farther than folks realize by advantage of cooperation and a shared goal of peers. It has always been somewhat trivial to concoct a major threat to a lot of folks. Your local library has a ton of these ideas in the fiction section. The expense of making things sabotage proof is substantial and hard to really accomplish completely. Even massive feats of engineering, such as the moon landing, all would have failed had a single actor been a saboteur.
- js2 9y agoIn any case, the cause of most power outages is still squirrels. We'll be in real trouble when the squirrels learn to pilot drones. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/06/17/squirrels_probably_cause_more_power_outages_in_the_u_s_than_cyberattacks.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/06/17/squir... http://cybersquirrel1.com/ http://cybersquirrel1.com/
- mmanfrin 9y agoWe need a WAR ON SQUIRRELS.
- otempomores 9y ago
- patorjk 9y agoI love drones, it hurts to read something like this because I worry that the public's gut reaction will be to ban them. However, it's only a matter of time before these types of incidents add up. I think a step in the right direction would be for drones to communicate to some kind of central hub, that way responsibility for these types of things wouldn't be an issue, and people could more easily contact surrounding airports/helipads (ex: before you launch a signal could go out to the surrounding airports for notification).
- bjl 9y agoI'm against a complete ban, but there should definitely be more restrictions than we have currently. Strict licensing requirements and a total ban on flying over private property (without explicit, written permission) seem like no-brainers to me.
- Houshalter 9y agoI hate this attitude. Many of the great technologies we have today were pretty dangerous and feared when they first appeared. I honestly think if electricity or automobiles were invented today, they would quickly be banned. Drones could be incredibly useful for many purposes and your proposal would basically kill them.
- bjl 9y agoHow would it kill them? Getting permission of property owners is a hindrance, sure, but I'm not willing to give up privacy rights for the privilege of flying drones wherever I want. Its no different than hunting, where you already have to get a license and ask for permission before going on to private property.
- Houshalter 9y agoHow do you make a drone delivery service without having to get the permission of millions of property owners? If just a few don't consent your business is dead. It's absurd. Hunting is actually taking resources from someone's property. A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all. Airplanes don't have to get permission from me to fly overhead. They can even legally take photos of my property if they want. Just the other day some recreational pilot crashed in a field near me, and he didn't have to have a flight plan or anything. You don't even need a pilots license if it's something like an ultralight. Drones are vastly safety than that.
- sharemywin 9y agoTerrorist + Drone + powerline = I'm surprised we have power at all anymore.
- ouid 9y agoWithout power the drones won't work, so at worst we have dynamic equilibrium.
- astrodust 9y agoElon Musk rocking the boat.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoTemporarily knocking out power to a local area doesn't really instill terror. Maybe if we called them "nuisancists."
- piinbinary 9y agoI'm curious why a drone was able to cause any issue. Could a bird or stray piece of trash in the same area have caused the issue (was it a short?), or did it require the force of the spinning blades?
- lightedman 9y agoSquirrels, mice, rats, raccoons, and birds take out power stations all the time. Many transformer stations are exposed to open air for cooling, with nothing more than a fence topped with razor wire for a barrier. This makes for easy, easy entry.
- paulddraper 9y agoSincere question: we've had RC model planes and helicopters for decades. What about "drones" (I actually don't know if there is a difference; that's just the word I hear) is uniquely concerning to the FAA and the general public?
- bsder 9y agoSimply: it took skill to pilot an RC plane or helicopter until the current round of autopilots. The amount of time you had to expend until you could simply keep the thing in the air without crashing was large. This tended to keep the idiots out of the hobby. With modern drones, there is no such entry barrier. Any idiot can throw a drone in the air and make it go somewhere.
- msnower 9y agoIt would be interested to see how startups like SkySafe (https://www.skysafe.io/ https://www.skysafe.io/ - backed by a16z) respond to these kinds of incidents. I could see users of these startups wanting to create "no-fly" zones to protect assets of theirs such as powerlines. I think as drones grow to become more common in our daily lives, the "Drone Security" industry will follow along.
- deckar01 9y agoMaybe drones should require liability insurance coverage. That should create a market forces that encourages safer drone technology. Disclosure: I work for an insurance company and previously owned a commercial drone business.
- thephyber 9y agoMandating insurance perverts incentives. Insurance wouldn't necessarily pay out the claim, putting the drone owner in a position of the liability (s)he is in now. Also, this does nothing to change incentives for the electrical grid, which should not be nearly as brittle as it is. That said, this is probably the simplest single solution to address what happened -- assuming anything should be done.
- asynchronous13 9y agoAlso mandatory insurance for kites and balloons, either of which could have caused the same damage.
- seanp2k2 9y agoEspecially kiteboarding kites (with sizes of 5-20sq meters) which are flown by Sherman Island right near the high-voltage power lines which also go over the river.
- c517402 9y agoThis is timely: https://xkcd.com/1846/ https://xkcd.com/1846/
- einarvollset 9y agoThis reminds me of a rather disturbing realization I had a few years ago. In places like the Bay Area, it would take only a small handful of non-violent protesters to completely shut down the major transit systems (aka the roads). All they'd need to do is to slow, stop and then park 3-5 cars in strategic places on 880, 80, 85, 101 and 280 and walk away. It would be mayhem.
- imaginenore 9y agoAngry people would quickly move them to the side. Much more worrisome is snipers shooting industrial transformers, causing massive damage while spending close to nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
- dirtae 9y agoIt's already been done in the Bay Area: https://twitter.com/i/moments/689241776549269504?lang=en https://twitter.com/i/moments/689241776549269504?lang=en
- neil_s 9y agoLove that I can find my local news on HN
- notadoc 9y agoPersonal drones are incredibly annoying at best. I realize they can take interesting footage and have industrial uses, but at the consumer level they are never anything beyond a loud invasive public nuisance. I'm sure in no time at all every self-obsessed youth will have a little selfie drone following them around broadcasting live too. Who would have predicted the future would be annoying narcissism?