15 ms·
U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people
- gammateam 8y agoCommercial drones, not a Pakistani bed time story
- cinquemb 8y agoTime to roll out metadata drone strikes-as-a-service.
- testplzignore 8y ago> The FAA is also proposing allowing discretionary waivers ... for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement. Huh? What would be a legitimate reason for that?
- solveit 8y agoSurveillance for law enforcement is the easy one that everybody's going to worry about. I can also see some niche uses for wildlife observation.
- lettergram 8y agoCould just be for night shots over ones house or fireworks... OR for low flying drones to view citizens
- stult 8y agoThe anticollision light has to be visible from three miles away. I could see that being excessive and disruptive for certain urban use cases.
- bengotow 8y agoYeah this seems aggressive. At that brightness it'd be like having street lights flying down your block. Also seems like lights that bright might use a prohibitive amount of power?
- asynchronous13 8y agoThe FAA cares about "equivalent level of safety." If it can be demonstrated that an operator can keep things safe even though they're breaking a rule, the FAA will allow a waiver for that rule. Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there. The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.
- ProfessorLayton 8y agoLots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals. NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as an issue, even if they're no louder than cars. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170005870.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...
- golemotron 8y agoThey are loud for now. That will change.
- threeseed 8y agoFans, helicopters etc have been around for decades and are still mostly loud. You can't escape the physics that moving air causes noise.
- chaostheory 8y agoEnergy efficient buildings tend to handle noise pollution better with their extra insulation. Not ideal, but there's always a solution.
- eftychis 8y agoI don't think it is a good idea for the sanity of people to tell them to stay inside and have really good sound insulation. We have to remember that sound pollution is a health issue and impacts people's lives. I have my doubts how efficient insulation one can get against air traffic -- from personal experience, it doesn't work.
- chaostheory 8y agoI'm speaking from experience, and I didn't intend to sound patronizing. I live really close to an airport. Have been for years. Lived in my home both before and after energy efficient improvements e.g. triple pane windows, more insulation, roofing, stormdoor, ... It works. If NIMBY lobbying fails, you have to take into account all tools available including smart earphones.
- hashkb 8y agoThis seems inconsistent, coming from the administration of a president who is hyper-concerned about terrorism and tends to overstate the security implications of just about everything. Close the borders, but open the skies?
- vokep 8y agoClose the borders to foreigners, open the skies to citizens, yes. Maybe there is an informative comparison of border policy to airspace policy, but it has yet to be written here. Otherwise it seems the two aren't very related
- hashkb 8y agoThe point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business. Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.
- the_reformation 8y agoAn FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.
- Retra 8y agoWhen you take something from "permitted" to "restricted", you turn actions from "normal" to "suspicious", and that definitely acts as a signal for observers and a deterrent. The FAA requires airline doors to be secured. Why would you assume that does nothing to stop a domestic terrorist? I can't imagine why you'd even say such a thing.
- vokep 8y agoOf course domestic terrorism exists, but it isn't frequent and it doesn't seem that more ability for any given citizen to carry out a specific terrorist attack correlates with more domestic terrorists attacks in general. The fear around borders is different, as with borders, even when everything is working as intended, there is still a constant threat of people who want to cross the border illegally. With a secured border they will try and fail to cross (ideally), without border security, they will cross. With drones, regulations like these only better outline how law-abiding citizens should act. The threat of terrorism isn't dealt with with regulation like this, it already is very illegal to do anything terrorizing on purpose with a drone, so a regulation about flying at night doesn't protect from that. With the border I mentioned how its an ever present threat, well, with drones it isn't. It can become a major threat if society was less stable perhaps, but as is, not enough people want to commit terrorism via drones for it to be a threat in the public mind. All this said, it absolutely can become a fear campaign with drones. I can't remember specifics, but I know I've witnessed a handful of incidents where someone was injured at a park or similar location and subsequently got regulation to ban/limit drone use at the park or similar location. Incidents like that would only need to be a bit more numerous and a nationwide anti-drone campaign could work. Even already if it was made a partisan issue, many would pick a side with strong confidence.
- todd3834 8y ago> Under the FAA’s proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. > For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an “unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold.” I assume this also includes the weight of the package. I'm pretty sure most of my Prime boxes weight more than half a pound. I wonder what the severity threshold is. Like, are propeller guards enough or is there still innovation that needs to happen?
- hashkb 8y agoAlso... weight is not a useful metric. A 1lb rock has very different ballistic properties than a 1lb feather. A typical 9mm bullet weighs 0.01lbs.
- ricardobeat 8y agoSince this is about objects falling from a certain height, yes, weight is a useful metric for rough safety estimates. A bullet does damage because it holds a lot more energy from being accelerated - a 9mm bullet will go around a mile up before falling down (source: MythBusters). Two 500g boxes dropped from a likely much lower height will have a similar effect (concussion?) when dropped on a pedestrian regardless of the contents, except for a few outliers. Even for small, heavy objects (like a 1kg camera lens) the load would be spread by its enclosure unless it separates mid-fall.
- hashkb 8y agoThe bullet, falling from the same height as a crashing drone, is at least as lethal if it strikes a human. There is no "safe weight" for a falling object... but there may be a "safe momentum".
- ricardobeat 8y agoThe proposed flying zone for drones like these is between 60-120m height. Seems like a bullet must travel at least 62m/s to penetrate human skin [1], for which you need a height of at least ~200m [2]. So even dropping a bullet from one the delivery drones would not carry a high risk of fatal injuries. That, and P=MV, momentum/energy increases proportionally to mass. A 'safe weight' can be defined if the altitude is known. [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bullets-kill-you.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bull... [2] https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mofall.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mofall.html
- asynchronous13 8y agoGood. The US government has been restricting commercial operations of drone development for far too long. Many companies that were US-based are moving their operations overseas where the laws are more reasonable (Australia and New Zealand, for example). This is a simple and reasonable step in the right direction. Open up legal operations for the smallest category and begin collecting data. It can help pave the way towards larger operations in a safe way.
- cronix 8y agoI'm more than happy to wait to see how those citizens in other countries like the noise, before doing it here. The privacy issues will also be interesting. Do you think these companies won't be attaching cameras to them as well to capture as much data as they possibly can why flying around? Then multiply that times as many drones as will be flying around. It will be great for tracking too, since you can theoretically have almost have 24/7 coverage, especially cities where everything is more compact. Just patch all the feeds together, like they do with cell phone cameras in Argus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8
- codedokode 8y agoThe drones can also intercept GSM equipment identifiers (IMEI), WiFi points identifiers, recognise car plate numbers and their owners' faces and sell all those data. This can even be more profitable than delivery.
- asynchronous13 8y agoIn the early tests in Australia there's already a lot of complaints about noise. Making the flights quieter is already becoming a higher priority. https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/27/alphabet-quiet-wing-delivery-drones/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/27/alphabet-quiet-wing-deli... Privacy is also important, but it's a separate issue. Is there anything that can be done via drone that can't be done with a cell phone or a go pro? It doesn't make sense to outlaw hammers just because they can be used for murder. edit: allow to outlaw
- simplify 8y agoShould I be worried about thief drones? If a drone can deliver a package, surely another drone can steal it too?
- gpm 8y agoLess than you should worry about thief delivery trucks. Drone's being more noticeable, and requiring more skill to obtain and operate (at least for now).
- diydsp 8y agoyes but drones can get away much faster making it completely worthwhile. drones can also record entry passcodes, snap pictures of keys and license plates, spoof gps, carry guns, spray toxic gas, drill through buildings and sniff EM fields to see who is where and when. perfect legal data to resell to unsavories. this would be a security nightmare.
- drusepth 8y agoThis is one of those things that you assume is going to happen eventually no matter what. Why not just do it now? That's not necessarily meant to be flippant; it's a real question: what unknowns have dissuaded us from doing this until now? Are they resolved now? Would they be resolved in the future given some kind of delay until this (inevitably) happens?
- asynchronous13 8y agoThe major unknown that prevented this until now was the average age of the people working at the FAA. For a long time any request for something unusual was met with the simple response, "No". The FAA's mandate is safety, and they could justify disallowing new things for the sake of safety. They've finally realized that this is inevitable, and they can't just say "No" forever. A lot of the old guard is retiring, and the newer employees are figuring out how to integrate new technology safely.
- reaperducer 8y agothe average age of the people working at the FAA That's ageism, plain and simple. I hope you don't ever have to hire people, or you'll get your company fined.
- asynchronous13 8y agoThis was a very polite version of what an FAA employee told me.
- lovemenot 8y agoand if she'd told you it was all the fault of blacks / gays whatever ?
- cronix 8y agoOne thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life will go down, and people will become very annoyed. I own 2 drones. They are very loud and there isn't much you can do to quiet them. They are helicopters with 4x the number of blades on very tiny motors that spin very fast and are loud.
- neaanopri 8y agoI don't see this happening. The propeller physics aren't changing. If you are using the quadrotor architechure, directly lifting your playload with no wings, there's a sound-per-kg number that can't be engineered away.
- iancmceachern 8y agoIs Active noise canceling an option?
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agoOn the ground? To an extent, but it would be expensive to deploy and maintain. On the drone? No, you’re adding weight and reducing available power.
- jstplanecurious 8y agoI thought iancmceachern asked a really good question. I was curious if it could work even theoretically. I read the Wikipedia article on Active Noise Control. The third paragraph under Explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control#Explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control#Explanati... mentions that if it's at the source, it needs to be just as loud as the source (as opposed to being by the ear, in which case even a whisper might be enough). In addition to being as loud as the source, you need to blast it in all directions. So I guess it's hard/impossible to perfectly hit the same sound waves in all directions. If you ever miss, you'll just be doubling the noise. Maybe that's why you'll be hard-pressed to find anything in a fixed installation that uses active noise cancellation at the source - even if it's heavy, periodic, and uses a lot of power anyway - such as a home air conditioner. Noise cancellation close to the ear seems much easier for this reason, and maybe at the source it's just impossible.
- tareqak 8y agoWill they have restrictions on the cargo that these drones are allowed to carry. I know that the drones themselves will probably have rechargeable batteries powering them. However, if 1. the drone is carrying cargo 2. the cargo isn't sufficiently secure to the drone 3. the cargo contains rechargeable batteries / some other component that can explode as result of high speed impact with a sufficiently hard surface 4. the cargo lacks sufficient packaging material 5. the cargo happens to fall from the drone's flight altitude then isn't there a risk of an explosion? Update: Is this question inappropriate? I made it in good faith.
- stcredzero 8y agoWhat if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? Several years back, the PLOS folks visited my local hackerspace and talked about using balloons to double check chemical emissions of oil refineries near Houston. They had to use balloons, because there were legal problems with using drones. The concerns of overflown companies are quite understandable as well. For things like scientific instruments, what about some sort of inspection of flown equipment and licensing?
- reaperducer 8y agoWhat if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? I'm not an expert, but if an company wants to use drones to monitor its industrial site, that's fine. It's private property. Just like construction companies use drones to monitor construction. But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property, even if it's for something as seemingly good as monitoring chemical emissions. What happens when there's a malfunction and your machine plummets into a stack, or hits a person? Again, I'm not an expert on this. I suspect nobody really is since it's all a new realm, and what few laws there are haven't been tested very much.
- stcredzero 8y agoBut you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property But if the government has the right and duty to regulate emissions into the atmosphere, they should be able to measure the air over a refinery. This is why I mentioned some kind of accreditation. Maybe the company could hire an independent 3rd party, whose work and devices can be inspected by all parties?
- asynchronous13 8y agoActually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly. A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you own all of the airspace above it. It has been tested in court that a property owner owns some height above the surface of their land. 300ft over the tallest structure is definitely in the public domain. However, the minimum altitude that one is allowed to fly over private land without permission has not been established in court. A drone at 10ft could definitely be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 400ft definitely could not be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 150ft? That still needs to be tested in court. Then general rule is that a property owner is entitled to the enjoyment of their property.
- peterburkimsher 8y agoI was in Taiwan for the last 4 years, and went to many music festivals. At one of those, the drone continued recording videos even after sunset. The weather was super hot. I was directly underneath at times, and the breeze from the drone was a very welcome relief. I wasn't scared about it falling on me, and the noise didn't disturb the music (although that says something about my taste for punk rock). That may be different for large delivery drones, but I think that small recreational drones (e.g. DJI) should be allowed all the time, including at night over a crowd.
- brokenmachine 8y agoLet me get this right: because you weren't annoyed by the level of drone noise while you were at a punk rock concert and weren't worried about it falling on you, you think flying them over people should be allowed "all the time"? Like another commenter said, "You go inside if you want peace and quiet. The outside is only for the self-entitled now."
- GoodJokes 8y agoCan’t wait for a bunch of unregulated companies only answering to shareholders and with a long rap sheet of privacy violations to start flying little helicopters over cities at night. Everything is just fine. Maybe I should buy that BB gun.
- jMyles 8y agoOne of the most important roles for drones is fully independent observation of police that is very difficult to physically disrupt. If independent, amateur, volunteer drone operators begin to observe nearly every outdoor police encounter in the United States, without the police being physically able to stop it, that alone will be a big enough victory to justify many of the side effects. Let's ensure that observation of government agents, whether at a traffic stop or a huge gathering, becomes a regular, legal, celebrated practice. Nobody stands to benefit more from this than honest, integral police officers who live in fear of reporting their less savory colleagues.
- vkou 8y agoI think a bigger concern is that the police will use drones to conduct ubiquitous surveillance.
- leetcrew 8y agothe FBI already does stuff like this with little cessnas, albeit not at scale. [0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveillance-government-planes-cities https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveill...
- flyinglizard 8y agoNot that I'm advocating against police transparency, but just imagine what it would be like to livestream your work computer screen to the entire world. It sounds quite stressful.
- codedokode 8y agoFirst thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Most of the drones I've seen have no protection. The manufacturers and owners don't care about the safety at all. Also, what if the drone flies into someone's window or a car? How do you identify the owner?
- jstplanecurious 8y ago>First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Does anyone know why this isn't standard? I Googled this question: "why don't quadcopters have safety cages" https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+safety+cages https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+s... ... ... and even saw cages that go around the whole quadcopter (not just the propellers as I was expecting). If those were a bit squishy they could seriously reduce any chance of concussion/property damage if landing on someone or something! The YouTube video below is pretty amazing, it shows someone demonstrating such a cage. "Spherical Cage Incased Quadcopter" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B3X6EvZ2XM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B3X6EvZ2XM I've submitted it as a separate submission. (It's only 2 minutes.) He says it flies great, and he even seems to purposefully drop it several times from as high as the height of a building. Also for anyone who hasn't been around drones much, in the middle of the video you can hear the annoying whirring noise people mention throughout this thread.
- asynchronous13 8y ago> Does anyone know why this isn't standard? Because cages weigh more. Minimizing weight is critical for anything that flies. If it weighs more, then it takes more energy to make it fly. If it weighs more, then that's less payload that it can carry.
- leetcrew 8y agoit's actually worse than that. in addition to the weight penalty, prop guards decrease the performance of the rotors and make the aircraft a bit less stable.
- soundpuppy 8y agoGood. God only knows how much money is wasted when you just want a camera in the sky to monitor traffic/incidents and are forced to spend money on a helicopter/fuel/pilot.
- kozikow 8y agoDrones are overrated in my opinion. Most of the "map an area" use cases are more cost effective via airplane pilots doing their miles. Most of the "monitor an area" use cases are more cost effective via CCTVs.