10 ms·

That footage is excellent and definitely show how valuable drones can be during disasters. I don't envy the FAA. They are being dragged kicking and screaming i

by jtchang 12y ago

That footage is excellent and definitely show how valuable drones can be during disasters. I don't envy the FAA. They are being dragged kicking and screaming into this new age of drone flight. It is going to take a while for good policies to emerge regarding the use of drones. I personally am conflicted. I don't especially want a drove hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me? But I also want the freedom to go buy a drone and fly it wherever I damn well please (without having to have a permit or deal with red tape). I'm not sure what the answer is. Require insurance for drone operators? Require licenses?

vajorie 12y ago
> What if it crashes into me? First world problems. Literally.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Except in the 3rd world where the problem is less the drone crashing into you but rather the drone firing a hellfire missile at some suspected terrorist who happened to be near you at the wrong time.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>> I don't especially want a drove hovering over me wherever I go. I think this is the future, and it is inevitable. We are going to have lots and lots of tiny drones flying around our cities. Some will be doing light-package deliveries, some will be doing photos and videos for journalism, some will be collecting information for various web apps, and so on. And all of them will be equipped (required by regulation) with sensors and software to avoid colliding with objects, people and each other.
- TwoBit 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure Amazon's drone delivery announcement was a PR stunt and not real.
  - oh_sigh 12y ago
    Bzzt. Wrong.
  - bertil 12y ago
    The footage, jokes and date it was released (Apr. 1st) made the PR stunt fairly obvious, but automated deliveries (using flying drones or something closer to Google-self-driving cars) are something that Amazon is seriously considering. It’s just not cost effective and practical at the moment. However, rest assured that as soon as someone (presumably Google) manages to lobby a way to lower the legal burden of responsibilities on the human ‘driver’ because he or she was not supposed to pay attention, or react to the automated driving, there will be an way to argue that a car can drive empty. And, from then, they won’t be many truck drivers employed very soon. Drones for the last mile or last yard delivery might make sense, but I rather see Wall-E-like o Big-Dog-like bots swarming from the truck. In other words: Amazon wasn’t joking entirely, but the idea of a swarm of flying things isn’t any more energy efficient then than it is now.
- baddox 12y ago
  The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations. Drones are incredibly cheap, and increasingly easy to use off the shelf. Short of an all-out ban on manufacturer and sale (which itself would be very difficult considering how ubiquitous the required components are), I just don't see what they can do. It will be like trying to ban P2P downloading. No matter how stiff and high-profile the penalties are, people are going to do it if it's incredibly cheap, easy, and useful.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    > The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations. I imagine it'll also be very hard to track a rogue drone down to it's owner. Too small for radar, too maneuverable to follow with an airplane or helicopter. Will we see police drones with automatic drone pursuit abilities?
    - pjc50 12y ago
      You track the rogue drones by waiting for the owner to leak some information about them on the internet (obvious example is posting illegally-gathered drone footage to youtube, but there are more subtle ways)
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      You can track drones with cameras.
michael_miller 12y ago
I fear the stupidity and ignorance of inexperienced drone operators. Our airspace is complex with lots of rules and regulations to ensure safe separation of aircraft. Trained pilots have enough trouble obeying the rules and being safe, so I question whether someone who has no formal training is capable of doing so. What happens if an inexperienced drone operator is going down the Hudson River corridor without reading up on the radio procedures, while I'm barreling down at 140 knots? Pilots are trained to look up special airspace before doing a flight, but how would someone who just bought a drone off the shelf be familiar with these practices? There's no inherent reason that drones can't follow the same procedures and be just as safe as airplanes today, but it's dangerous to have the attitude of "buy it off the shelf and go fly it with no training." The privacy issue doesn't concern me as much, since it's already possible to rent a helicopter and follow someone around all day. The only attribute that's changing is the cost: rather than paying $300/h for a helicopter, you can pay a couple bucks an hour for constant surveillance.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Consumer-level "drones" are just remote control aircraft, which have been safely flown with minimal training and regulation for decades.
  - grannyg00se 12y ago
    Flown in remote, designated flying fields sanctioned by a regulatory body whose membership were all trained and checked out. At least in my experience. You didn't have people flying RC choppers or airplanes in the street. They were quite a bit heavier, larger, and noisier so you didn't have the same issues as we're now having to face with drones.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      Being small, lightweight and silent actually makes a good case for their use in many situations. Impact against aircraft becomes less probable and a lot less dangerous; silence undermines the case against disruption and noise pollution. Drone seem like a very simple matter to me, it seems americans are ignoring a long of history with model aircraft and simply common sense, specially when it comes to privacy concerns. Simply making drones unregulated wouldn't mean the city would be dominated by them overnight. Common sense snooping regulations should apply. Do you frequently see people snooping their neighbors intrusively? Why would they use a drone for that? Common sense should dictate the operator is responsible for it's misuse and any accident. In Brazil you are essentially free to use drones however you wish; there's no relevant regulation so you'd have to do something really bad to have someone come after you. Yet there's no drone abuse, and plenty of cool applications. I've been to a bike race some time ago and the finishing line was filmed by a drone, it was pretty cool. People are using drones for mapping, agriculture, media, etc. I haven't heard of a single problem with aviation or privacy.
wahsd 12y ago
Hey, what are you up to in your back yard, neighbor? In ways I agree with you, in others I don't. You shouldn't just be able to "fly it wherever I damn well please" unless you own the airspace above or maybe if it's land designated as acceptable for that purpose. I think certain laws of public access will probably translate well, if the government doesn't use this as an opportunity to curtail freedoms and liberty again. I for one don't want you "flying it wherever you damn well please" unless that means I can "shoot it down however I damn well please"
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  In the US at least, you don't own the air rights above your home.. the US government does (see the Federal Aviation Act). So in your example, you just caused real property damage (by shooting down the drone) because it was on property you don't even own (the air). http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-my-neighbors-house-is-it-trespassing/263431/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-f...
  - ZombieElvis 12y ago
    Strange, because i remember reading that in the US you actually own the airspace above your property to a certain height (i think 500ft), and the law just requires you allow unrestricted airspace access to any vehicle under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the US military, or the US government. So i guess, technically, you could shot down a civilian drone.
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      It is a little more complicated than what I said.. The article has a pretty good explanation. In the article: the first case the supreme court heard on the matter was a chicken farmer who said planes flying overhead were scaring his chickens, and they would fly into walls from fright. He had about 150 dead chickens. The planes were flying at 83 ft. He lost that case. Here's the Wikipedia "air rights" article... it has a section on the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights A quote: Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[2] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[3] It also mentions a 500ft min limit for sparsely populated areas. But note, that's a limit set by the FAA. They may lower it or raise it if they want to. In the wikipedia article you'll also find a quote from a case by a property owner suing a nearby airport. I think it perfectly sums up the rights of property owners with regards to the air.. but it's a little long to post here.
FollowSteph3 12y ago
I look at it the same as a car. You can't just drive anywhere. So why is a drone much different. At least under the height for a commercial license.
- FollowSteph3 12y ago
  In fact I can't just randomly go walking wherever I want. I can't walk through your backyard, or just stand and hang out there. I'll get arrested for trespassing. Right now the problem is that these rules haven't been defined, but most likely just like cars and walking there will be places where you can and can't go. I highly suspect that the space above a private property up to the commercial line will be considered part of that's person's space. After that it will be like most everything else, there will be places you can and can't fly, just like there are places you can drive a car, take a walk, and so on.
  - dingaling 12y ago
    At present, the Class G airspace up to 700 or 1200 feet ( above ground level ) is pretty much do-as-you-please in the USA outside restricted or prohibited areas. You can fly unmanned balloons, helicopters, Macross robots... whatever. Essentially the FAA has no jurisdiction below 700 feet ourside controlled zones, so if you avoid those you can basically fly anywhere you want.
wave 12y ago
I don't especially want a drove[sic] hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me? This type of fear is common for any type of new technology. I am sure people had similar fear when automobiles started to appear in the streets. They might have said "what if the car hit me while I am walking". Eventually, we will all get used to it and start to live with risks associated with it.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Aren't you agreeing with him? We don't just let anyone drive any homegrown vehicle anywhere with no rules. Driving is highly regulated. You need a driver's license. Cars need to be equipped with certain safety features which must be inspected regularly. You're only allowed to drive on certain prepared surfaces, etc.
greggman 12y ago
I'm also conflicted. I grew up with my mom and my neighbor sunbathing topless in our backyard. I don't think they'd have appreciated any drones snapping pictures and uploading them. Then again, maybe in this brave new privacy free world no one will care?
bertil 12y ago
I'm assuming that a generic prohibition for loosely defined “irresponsible behaviour” is the best take: Police remain able to ask you to stop for any reason -- same as ‘reckless driving’, in a way. That would have to be enforced by more powerful drones, able to out-run, capture and drag down commercially available models.

by jtchang 12y ago

vajorie 12y ago

> What if it crashes into me? First world problems. Literally.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Except in the 3rd world where the problem is less the drone crashing into you but rather the drone firing a hellfire missile at some suspected terrorist who happened to be near you at the wrong time.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>> I don't especially want a drove hovering over me wherever I go. I think this is the future, and it is inevitable. We are going to have lots and lots of tiny drones flying around our cities. Some will be doing light-package deliveries, some will be doing photos and videos for journalism, some will be collecting information for various web apps, and so on. And all of them will be equipped (required by regulation) with sensors and software to avoid colliding with objects, people and each other.

TwoBit 12y ago
I'm pretty sure Amazon's drone delivery announcement was a PR stunt and not real.
- oh_sigh 12y ago
  Bzzt. Wrong.
- bertil 12y ago
  The footage, jokes and date it was released (Apr. 1st) made the PR stunt fairly obvious, but automated deliveries (using flying drones or something closer to Google-self-driving cars) are something that Amazon is seriously considering. It’s just not cost effective and practical at the moment. However, rest assured that as soon as someone (presumably Google) manages to lobby a way to lower the legal burden of responsibilities on the human ‘driver’ because he or she was not supposed to pay attention, or react to the automated driving, there will be an way to argue that a car can drive empty. And, from then, they won’t be many truck drivers employed very soon. Drones for the last mile or last yard delivery might make sense, but I rather see Wall-E-like o Big-Dog-like bots swarming from the truck. In other words: Amazon wasn’t joking entirely, but the idea of a swarm of flying things isn’t any more energy efficient then than it is now.
baddox 12y ago
The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations. Drones are incredibly cheap, and increasingly easy to use off the shelf. Short of an all-out ban on manufacturer and sale (which itself would be very difficult considering how ubiquitous the required components are), I just don't see what they can do. It will be like trying to ban P2P downloading. No matter how stiff and high-profile the penalties are, people are going to do it if it's incredibly cheap, easy, and useful.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  > The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations. I imagine it'll also be very hard to track a rogue drone down to it's owner. Too small for radar, too maneuverable to follow with an airplane or helicopter. Will we see police drones with automatic drone pursuit abilities?
  - pjc50 12y ago
    You track the rogue drones by waiting for the owner to leak some information about them on the internet (obvious example is posting illegally-gathered drone footage to youtube, but there are more subtle ways)
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    You can track drones with cameras.

michael_miller 12y ago

I fear the stupidity and ignorance of inexperienced drone operators. Our airspace is complex with lots of rules and regulations to ensure safe separation of aircraft. Trained pilots have enough trouble obeying the rules and being safe, so I question whether someone who has no formal training is capable of doing so. What happens if an inexperienced drone operator is going down the Hudson River corridor without reading up on the radio procedures, while I'm barreling down at 140 knots? Pilots are trained to look up special airspace before doing a flight, but how would someone who just bought a drone off the shelf be familiar with these practices? There's no inherent reason that drones can't follow the same procedures and be just as safe as airplanes today, but it's dangerous to have the attitude of "buy it off the shelf and go fly it with no training." The privacy issue doesn't concern me as much, since it's already possible to rent a helicopter and follow someone around all day. The only attribute that's changing is the cost: rather than paying $300/h for a helicopter, you can pay a couple bucks an hour for constant surveillance.

ceejayoz 12y ago
Consumer-level "drones" are just remote control aircraft, which have been safely flown with minimal training and regulation for decades.
- grannyg00se 12y ago
  Flown in remote, designated flying fields sanctioned by a regulatory body whose membership were all trained and checked out. At least in my experience. You didn't have people flying RC choppers or airplanes in the street. They were quite a bit heavier, larger, and noisier so you didn't have the same issues as we're now having to face with drones.
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    Being small, lightweight and silent actually makes a good case for their use in many situations. Impact against aircraft becomes less probable and a lot less dangerous; silence undermines the case against disruption and noise pollution. Drone seem like a very simple matter to me, it seems americans are ignoring a long of history with model aircraft and simply common sense, specially when it comes to privacy concerns. Simply making drones unregulated wouldn't mean the city would be dominated by them overnight. Common sense snooping regulations should apply. Do you frequently see people snooping their neighbors intrusively? Why would they use a drone for that? Common sense should dictate the operator is responsible for it's misuse and any accident. In Brazil you are essentially free to use drones however you wish; there's no relevant regulation so you'd have to do something really bad to have someone come after you. Yet there's no drone abuse, and plenty of cool applications. I've been to a bike race some time ago and the finishing line was filmed by a drone, it was pretty cool. People are using drones for mapping, agriculture, media, etc. I haven't heard of a single problem with aviation or privacy.

wahsd 12y ago

Hey, what are you up to in your back yard, neighbor? In ways I agree with you, in others I don't. You shouldn't just be able to "fly it wherever I damn well please" unless you own the airspace above or maybe if it's land designated as acceptable for that purpose. I think certain laws of public access will probably translate well, if the government doesn't use this as an opportunity to curtail freedoms and liberty again. I for one don't want you "flying it wherever you damn well please" unless that means I can "shoot it down however I damn well please"

rgbrenner 12y ago
In the US at least, you don't own the air rights above your home.. the US government does (see the Federal Aviation Act). So in your example, you just caused real property damage (by shooting down the drone) because it was on property you don't even own (the air). http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-my-neighbors-house-is-it-trespassing/263431/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-f...
- ZombieElvis 12y ago
  Strange, because i remember reading that in the US you actually own the airspace above your property to a certain height (i think 500ft), and the law just requires you allow unrestricted airspace access to any vehicle under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the US military, or the US government. So i guess, technically, you could shot down a civilian drone.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    It is a little more complicated than what I said.. The article has a pretty good explanation. In the article: the first case the supreme court heard on the matter was a chicken farmer who said planes flying overhead were scaring his chickens, and they would fly into walls from fright. He had about 150 dead chickens. The planes were flying at 83 ft. He lost that case. Here's the Wikipedia "air rights" article... it has a section on the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights A quote: Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[2] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[3] It also mentions a 500ft min limit for sparsely populated areas. But note, that's a limit set by the FAA. They may lower it or raise it if they want to. In the wikipedia article you'll also find a quote from a case by a property owner suing a nearby airport. I think it perfectly sums up the rights of property owners with regards to the air.. but it's a little long to post here.

FollowSteph3 12y ago

I look at it the same as a car. You can't just drive anywhere. So why is a drone much different. At least under the height for a commercial license.

FollowSteph3 12y ago
In fact I can't just randomly go walking wherever I want. I can't walk through your backyard, or just stand and hang out there. I'll get arrested for trespassing. Right now the problem is that these rules haven't been defined, but most likely just like cars and walking there will be places where you can and can't go. I highly suspect that the space above a private property up to the commercial line will be considered part of that's person's space. After that it will be like most everything else, there will be places you can and can't fly, just like there are places you can drive a car, take a walk, and so on.
- dingaling 12y ago
  At present, the Class G airspace up to 700 or 1200 feet ( above ground level ) is pretty much do-as-you-please in the USA outside restricted or prohibited areas. You can fly unmanned balloons, helicopters, Macross robots... whatever. Essentially the FAA has no jurisdiction below 700 feet ourside controlled zones, so if you avoid those you can basically fly anywhere you want.

wave 12y ago

I don't especially want a drove[sic] hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me? This type of fear is common for any type of new technology. I am sure people had similar fear when automobiles started to appear in the streets. They might have said "what if the car hit me while I am walking". Eventually, we will all get used to it and start to live with risks associated with it.

kalleboo 12y ago
Aren't you agreeing with him? We don't just let anyone drive any homegrown vehicle anywhere with no rules. Driving is highly regulated. You need a driver's license. Cars need to be equipped with certain safety features which must be inspected regularly. You're only allowed to drive on certain prepared surfaces, etc.

greggman 12y ago

I'm also conflicted. I grew up with my mom and my neighbor sunbathing topless in our backyard. I don't think they'd have appreciated any drones snapping pictures and uploading them. Then again, maybe in this brave new privacy free world no one will care?

bertil 12y ago

I'm assuming that a generic prohibition for loosely defined “irresponsible behaviour” is the best take: Police remain able to ask you to stop for any reason -- same as ‘reckless driving’, in a way. That would have to be enforced by more powerful drones, able to out-run, capture and drag down commercially available models.