3 ms·
I do think requiring a specific 3rd party subscription is silly and over the top. I was generally defending the broad idea of drone regulations which I've seen
by rtkwe 6y ago
I do think requiring a specific 3rd party subscription is silly and over the top. I was generally defending the broad idea of drone regulations which I've seen a lot of reflexive push back to.
And ADS-B style is probably the best and easiest option. It can be an easy add on to existing quads and probably done pretty cheaply. Places with airspace concerns can easily setup a base station to listen to their local area.
> Every single incident involving a drone has involved the concern of violation of someone's privacy or violation of an airspace, and even in those incidents there has been a lot of hysteria involved in the media response
They haven't yet (at least in a mass event, several have fallen on crowds etc) but violations of airspace, especially around airports, don't have to actually cause injury because the threat of an airliner engine eating one somewhere between their commit speed and their rudder authority speed or any time really during take off and landing requires airports be extremely cautious about drone sightings.
- chrisdalke 6y agoI agree, I think there's a much smaller pushback from the more dedicated community about the method for tracking and the limits around DIY aircraft -- If it was a plug-and-play transmitter that you had to pay for and register, I think that would be fine. It could be integrated into the RC receivers on your plane, powered via 5v servo cable, or part of your transmitter. But this odd system involving a proprietary cloud and "phone-home" style telemetry doesn't sit well, especially because it's specified in a way that makes it impossible for any DIY aircraft to comply.