Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Time To Regulate Domestic Drones?
Nerval's Lobster writes "Earlier this week, a small helicopter drone tumbled out of the sky over midtown Manhattan, crashing to the sidewalk near Grand Central Station. On the way down it almost hit a businessman, who plucked out the video card from the wreckage and handed it over to a local television-news station. In the video, the drone (a Phantom Quadcopter) lifts off from what looks like an apartment terrace and buzzes its merry way toward some nearby skyscrapers, pausing for a few panoramic surveys of the Manhattan skyline. But the operator is clearly inexperienced, crashing the vehicle against the side of a building, and the flight lasts a mere three minutes before a final collision sends it to the street. Drone enthusiasts and engineers blamed the Quadcopter's poor performance on the pilot's possible reliance on GPS mode; when flying in an area crowded with tall buildings (and they don't get much taller or more crowded than in Manhattan) that block GPS signals, a vehicle can quickly think it's off-target and attempt to correct, leading to crashes. In theory, the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan, but that hasn't stopped any number of hobbyists from launching drones. And hobbyists aside, the industry for commercial drones is picking up: over the summer, the FAA approved a pair of small, unmanned aircraft systems for flight, and Airware (which builds autopilot computers for drones) recently accepted funding from Google Ventures. That's led legislators to begin exploring ways to regulate domestic drone use (particularly with regard to use by law enforcement), and it begs the question: should drones be regulated? And if so, how?"
A similar incident just happened in Australia, where a small drone operated by an unknown owner crashed into the Sydney Harbor Bridge. Counter-terrorism officials felt they had to investigate, of course.
Does that mean drones flown within the borders of your country, or drones owned by citizens of your country? If this is another NSA-esque "it's OK to spy on just about anybody in the world as long as they're not a citizen of the US of A" thing, I'm going to be angry.
Why would drones have videocards? Oh wait, the guy doing the reporting is stupid and was talking about an SD card that had a video file of the flight on it.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The article states the FAA already has regulations, so WHY the call for more? Just enforce what is there and stop making it harder to actually follow laws and regulations.
Paranoid people
So, basically, any machine that flies and is remotely operated is a drone nowadays? This 'drone' word is being way overused.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
A 3 pound object falling 15 could easily kill someone without a helmet. Even with a helmet your chances aren't that stellar.
"..and it begs the question: should drones be regulated?"
No it does not beg the question.
Begs the question does not just mean "the question that should be asked." It means "basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." In other words, assuming a truth without providing proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
So you're going to make the drones go away by adding more government?
So you're going to make the government go away by adding more government?
So you're governmenting to make the government go government by governmenting government government?
Government government government government government government government government government government government government government?
I'm an anarchocapitalist!
No. Look at the number of deaths from alcohol. When we start seeing numbers like that, then maybe we should think about regulation. We have too much regulation in everything already. We should be removing some of those laws.
and they get messed up in an area crowded with tall buildings
(particularly with regard to use by law enforcement)
If they are concerned about use by law enforcement, this this will do no good. Law enforcement doesn't obey the law, they are above the law. Anyone paying attention knows that they just do whatever they want. If they are ever caught the only "punishment" is to give some tax payer money to someone.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What's the difference between a unmanned drone and those remote control helicopters/airplanes that people have been flying for years.
Is it the fact that you pre-program a course and it navigates by itself instead of a human controlling it and watching where it goes (either on the ground or through an on-board camera link back to a base station).
Is it based on size? or payload?
20 years ago I had a model rocket that went several hundred feet up and then spread it wings to glide back down - does that count as a drone? How about if I put a camera on it?
or is the question moot and we should regulate everything that flies or glides without a human on board to control it. Even down to paper airplanes.
I'd rather live in a world where there's police, even if some are corrupt, than a world without.
/ force
It's a frickin' toy. And what's up with taking the SD card and giving it away? If a car crashes in front of him will he start picking up items and handing them out?
How is this different from any other model aircraft? Quadcopters are probably a lot less dangerous than all the other kinds of model aircraft people have been flying for decades.
It's simple: if you hurt or kill someone with a "drone", you're going to be held responsible just when you do the same with any other kind of object, vehicle, weapon, or model aircraft. And if you fly model aircraft where you shouldn't, you can be held responsible for that already.
Now, stop making new stupid laws that simply duplicate already existing, perfectly good laws.
This is the exact reason autonomous cars do not rely on GPS for navigation. Typical sensor suites for an autonomous car in addition to GPS include: Inertial Navigation System, high resolution odometry encoders, 2D lasers, 3D lasers, and 3D stereo vision. The data from all these sensors are fused together to create a high accurate (to within 10 centimeters in my experience) localization of the robot car.
Sooo....The FAA already forbids flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas, but since some people do it anyway we should add regulations to forbid flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas? If that doesn't work, I suppose that we could always add a regulation to forbid flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas, or perhaps a regulation to forbid flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas.
As a last ditch effort, maybe we should do all of the above but add a regulation to forbid flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas?
Let's start by regulating law enforcement use of drones out of existence.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
on your own Reaper or Predator Drone
I'm sure we can get the NRA and the Military/Industrial complex behind this!
the next logical step would then be drone-killer drones, killer drone killer drones, etc
-I'm just sayin'
If a car tried to run me down and kill me but crashed, and I noticed that it had a dash board camera, I might certainly take the memory card from the camera, particularly if there was no one trying to stop me. Who it is given to, cops, news media or a lawyer depends on the details of the case. But in this example I think it was better to give it to the news media than to give it to cops who are likely to be too stupid, too lazy, or too corrupt to do anything proper with it.
Your supposedly moral position of "don't take the evidence, it belongs to the person who almost killed you and he might not want anyone to see where the projectile came from" is disgusting.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Before you scream "Think of the children!" shouldn't you at least wait until one gets bruised?
As it stands now, I'd prefer the drones stay unregulated - I'm planning a trip to Manhattan to collect free quad-copter parts and memory cards.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So we're calling for regulation of drones, when the drone operator is already violating the law.
God you fuckers are ignorant and stupid.
Where the fuck is your brain? Were you born that way or have you just been reading /. and listening to tea bagger/ayn rand propaganda so long its rotted your brain?
And no I'm not going to read the fucking article because to many fucking articles now are just some asshole's blog who's making money with advertisements and page views.
Time to something more productive like watch some porn.
There are FAA safety rules for flight, and AMA rules for hobyists. Even small toy helicopters & planes can be quite dangerous.
AMA = Academy for Model Aeronautics (SP?) (This is the group that oversees most model aircraft clubs)
AMA clearly states thou shalt not fly over people, in crowded areas, or in a manner that might end up w/ your aircraft in a situation where it could cause harm.
This is no differnt than driving an RC car on a busy road. NOT BRILLIANT. (Though to be 100% honest, I'm all for cul de sacs, and the occasional county freeway...)
The guy clearly broke AMA rules, and if a member should have his status revoked. Also, I'm sure he broke the law, but befor we go TOO crazy, what if someone hit a softball in downtown NYC? a baseball? a rock... I'm pretty sure aimlessly throwing rocks isn't itself explicitly illegal yet.
IMHO a quadcopter is a rock w/ four props and a helluva battery...
I just can't believe the dumb a$$ lost a decent craft trying to fly near buildings which create crazy vertical wind sheer using GPS at that.
My biggest problem is dicks like this are going to make it harder for guys like me because the public will cry outrage, and think of the children. It won't be long before one of these DO hurt or kill someone.
I'm sure many /.. readers are interested in this kinda stuff. It's a great hobby btw. I suggest reading up on Wattflyer.com, DIYDrones.com, and RCPlanet.com. A bucketload of information abounds for those interested in doing heli's,quads, fixed wing, FPV & Drone flight. Learn to fly on a simulator, then learn again w/ an AMA chartered club. There everywhere, and you'll save tons of $ in broken planes.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan,
Looks like an applicable regulation to me. And it looks like the operator was in clear violation. No news here.
Have gnu, will travel.
public opinion... Drones are bad, ban drones.... blah blah b.s.
But really, the continued use of these things by inexperienced pilots is going to cause newsworth injury or death sooner or later, just like bucky balls...
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
A 3 pound object falling 15 could easily kill someone
Very unlikely with a flying device of any kind, because the weight is distributed over a large area with many parts that will crumple on impact, and terminal velocity is greatly reduced by the amount of resistance it would have falling through the air - a quad-rotor free-falling would probably act more like a leaf than a rock.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan" It's already a UAV free zone. What's the plan for further regulation? No uavs over 16oz?
You can sort of feel the moment when the guy realizes that he has about zero chance of being able to fly the thing back to his rather small balcony. He takes close to 50 seconds to get it up and off the balcony in the the first place because he's having trouble controlling it. Next, he flys across hundreds of feet of open space and smacks the same building several times like he's not sure of the orientation of the UAV. I feel it's obvious that he's on full-manual control w/o GPS and has no real-time video from the vehicle itself - he's totally screwed and he knows it...
Too bad he lost about $700 (UAV + camera) in 4 minutes...
Typical sensor suites for an autonomous car in addition to GPS include: Inertial Navigation System, high resolution odometry encoders, 2D lasers, 3D lasers,
Give me a million dollars or I'll turn my autonomous car loose upon your streets...
the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan
If it's for hobbyist reasons, no, it doesn't.
From the FAQ:
Do I need to get approval from the FAA to fly a model aircraft for recreation?
No. FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft. FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes. 1, 2
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn2
pdf1: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
pdf 2: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf
The second PDF applies to model aircraft. The first to SRS BZNS "money making" UAVs. It's when you start getting into SRS BZNS that the FAA says you need a waiver.
These quadcopters that are less than two feet across (even though the FAA in the second PDF says they don't define by size) that aren't SRS BZNS are obviously "model aircraft" and have never been needed to be regulated
The second PDF cited above has "guidelines" for "good neighborliness." They are good ideas if you don't want to injure anyone (where the real risk lies) and get sued in civil court for negligence. But they are not hard and fast administrative laws
--
BMO
But it still get lost it may be able to see the road but don't know where it's going.
As with many activities, people who break the already existing rules mess things up for everyone.
I was at the exciting finale of the America's Cup out on the pier with something like 10,000+ people watching the boats race to the finish line shadowed by three helicopters providing video coverage. So what does some dope do? Launches his quadcopter from the middle of an outdoor crowd and flys it out over the finish area. What part of "away from populated areas" and "away from aircraft operations" did this idiot not understand?
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Regulation is a poor substitute for common sense.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I sent a note to my senator a month ago about drones.
In it I had expressed no good/bad opinion.
I did offer some suggestions to improve safety.
Simple things like mandate ATC friendly beacons
because most are "stealthy" by design. I also
suggested tail "colors" so the flying agency could be
identified via binoculars. Especially important in
the case of forest fire management support rolls, i.e.
not covert, not law enforcement.
What was interesting was the gibberish letter that
made it clear that my letter had not been read but
it also made it clear that this California Senator and
staff had no researched opinion on the topic.
no clue....
My impression after reading the reply was to take
a large dose of KYjelly with each meal because it
will make the abuse I would receive from agencies
in the government less painful.
The trouble that I see is that this was a "generated" personal .....
reply. I would rather see a pointer to a single position statement.
The statement could say: "this is a new topic we are currently
researching and will be forming opinions". But between the
lines was a heavy hand pushing me down over a
We need to invent the NSAMA, that would take care of the drone problem.
I'll let you figure out the acronym.
Cool strawman, dipshit
So once 'bomb' became 'IED' I suppose it was inevitable that 'radio-controlled toy helicopter' would morph into 'unmanned drone'.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
It should know where it goes even without GPS. It knows the direction it goes (through Inertial system) and how far it goes (wheel encoders)
But "toy" is even easier to roll off the tongue, and more appropriate when the devices they're calling "drones" are $50 (or even $500) toys.
How much it costs doesn't matter much if it weighs a few pounds and falls on your head from 100m up, or flies into your windscreen while you're driving through a residential neighbourhood, or sits outside your home with its cameras pointing through a gap in your daughter's curtains while she gets changed.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In theory, all aircraft (except toys, of course) are required to have an airworthiness certificate, as per FAR 91.203.
This vehicle would be considered a toy. The operators were certainly using it as a toy.
The President and Congress last year ordered the FCC to come up with a plan for drones, with a deadline of September 2014, I believe. So we don't need any more laws mucking up the works; we need them to publish their guideline so people will know what is right and wrong. I know from my Phantom flying days the basics: no overflights of crowds, no flights over 400 feet, no flights within 4 miles of an airport - all rules this guy seems to have broken - but there is no big website you can go to and find the rules for safe flying, or no nationwide rules that the manufacturer can pack in with the drone as cheap valuable information.
The answer is to get the FAA off their duff to address the changing airspace so people can react to it responsibly. Then we can get qualifications and amateur flying insurance in place before people get killed.
They should be registered to your district, have all the necessary vaccine, and paid your ID taxes on it.
You also should let the go freely only in the drone park, and otherwise should be on leash at all times.
"..and it begs the question: should drones be regulated?"
No it does not beg the question.
I also used to attempt to point out the misunderstanding of this phrase. Then I grew up and realized that since at least 95% of the population now uses it the "modern" way and since the original meaning makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it is utterly pointless to continue trying to correct this modern usage. English may not be evolving as quickly as it used to but it nevertheless is still a living language that changes over time, and there is absolutely nothing you or I can do about it. The original meaning of the phrase is archaic, and that is that. You'll be much happier if you just get over it.
Seriously, according to those silly standardized tests I have been reading and understanding literature at what they refer to as "college level" since I was in grade school, and after reading the entire Wikipedia article on the phrase recently I simply could not accept even attempting to use "begs the question" to mean what it originally meant. If it was some obscure Latin phrase, maybe, but it's in perfect modern English and the original meaning is completely counterintuitive today. Expecting anyone but a historian to use the phrase "correctly" at this point is the height of idiocy. It's like saying the phrase "going to the store" actually originally meant "coming home for tea", and demanding that everyone use it that way. The original meaning is flat out upside-down and nonsensical to modern English speakers, and is thus never going to come back in style. The battle is long over.
Back on Topic: So yeah, now we're referring to any flying object as a "drone"? I was certain that all private manned and unmanned flying objects were already under the purview of a long list of FAA regulations. Total non-story. Fine the operator for flying in a controlled airspace (city) in a location where people could be injured by a crash. Done.
Wait, no, we need more laws, because DRONNNZZZZ!!! What's next, laws to regulate "non-aerial drones" after someone runs their 40-lb RC car into a pedestrian in the middle of some other city? The terrorists sure have done a number on the "home of the brave", haven't they? Might was well just make everything civilians do illegal by default and everything the "authorities" do legal by default, since that seems to be precisely where we are headed at breakneck speed. Total authoritarian state, here we come! Woohoo!
Your definition of "beg" is incorrect. The object it takes is not the that which is requested, but that of which the request is being made.
You beg another person for something. To beg a police officer is to say to him "please, mister police officer, don't do this or that."
Begging the question, as you use it, would only make sense if a "question" was an acting entity that could do something for someone. As in:
He encountered the question "what is this?" And, having encountered this question, he begged the question to loan him some money.
This makes no sense. Questions are not things that people beg. Questions might be something someone begs FOR, but they are not themselves begged.
Semantics are important. Without semantics, language becomes little more than the grunting of animals.
However, I will not encourage you to do yourself any harm, as I think that is wildly inappropriate. On the contrary, I would encourage you to study up a bit more on language, and perhaps on philosophy, in order to better yourself. You and everyone around you would benefit from this.
I'll be here all week, try the "Das Leben Des Anderen" casserole,
you'll like it.
Time to regulate government drones. They need to be required to notify citizens of their use and their location at any time they are in use above american soil.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You can't legally fly so much as a toy helicopter anywhere outside in New York City except in a few designated parks which require membership to certain clubs. None are in Manhattan. So what are you going to do, make it even MORE illegal?
Amazing, no one ever gets the building name right. Grand Central Station is a post office
Grand Central Terminal is where all the trains are.
To whoever is raising the question of regulating domestic drones: Fuck you. How about you focus on the need to regulate the kind of drones that we're using to actually deliberately kill people instead?
A similar incident just happened in Australia, where a small drone operated by an unknown owner crashed into the Sydney Harbor Bridge. Counter-terrorism officials felt they had to investigate, of course.
Well perhaps if the person who wrote the summery bothered to do some basic research they would know that Sydney is current at a high alert level and for a good reason.
http://www.navy.gov.au/ifr/
Soon, fkying vehicle vehicle hobbyists will require an FAA license, RC car hobbyists will require a drivers license, and watercraft hobbyist will require coast guard certifications.
What a lot of these people calling for banning and rregulation of hobbies is that the hobbyists are the inovators of things they use everyday.
Tesla woild be nowhere witjout the competitive sport of midified RC racing, they set the stress levels and vetten lithium ion batteries before any well funded research group decided ti claim thier trial and error experience as thuer own. Companies like Teeken, Losi, and others did all the trial and error way before all these pattent trils showerd up. If the hobby world ever decided to debunk t3slas pattents, tesla would lose.
Perhaps we should restrict stupidity instead. Or would you also choose to regulate golf balls too in case he decides to see how high one will bounce from the top of his building, or regulate empty car gas tanks, in case he decides to see how well one explodes, or make acetaminophen a prescription drug so people can't take it without being advised about side effects with alcohol.
It is not time for more laws. This flight was illegal. We do not need more laws in a misguided attempt to further prevent something that is already illegal.
While it was not a crash and looked more like a controlled while rather provocative landing, this "incident" raised some concern with politicians (demanding regulations) and drone operators (afraid of politicians demanding regulations).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV6g47hgRs
Like so many other situations only one side of the issue is being weighed. The nay sayers will point to all the supposed negatives that just might happen. But no notice is taken of the good these drones can do. Drones are so new that we haven't even imagined what can be done with drones. Obviously drones can stop a lot of crime. Drones can also save lives and do so already. Maybe soon we will see drones delivering pizza. But all we will hear about are the supposed negatives of allowing drones. We can not allow the extreme conservatives to constantly inhibit new technologies. Human activity has risks. Usually we can not calculate the benefits but that in no way implies that the benefits do not far outweigh the negatives. And as adults we do need to understand that we simply can not measure the good results from many activities. It is time to change our usual modes of behavior and thoughts.
Why is this being called a drone and not a remote controlled plane? From the summary it sounds like this was a hobbyist doing this rather than someone in part of the government (which is the application that drone implies) if it *was* someone at an agency or military branch flying this then that seems like a bit of a bigger deal than it crashing.
Also ditto on the 'use the already established regulations before making more'.
According to the summary ("the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan") there are already regulations in place that are being ignored. The solution to ignored regulations is not more regulations; it is more enforcement of existing regulations.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan
Casteism
If it knows your position at some point it should still be able to extrapolate your position at a later point, think accelerometer, compass, or even cameras/lasers to build a 3D model of the environment around you and compare it to the map.
Only the government drones.
Law enforcement doesn't obey the law, they are above the law. Anyone paying attention knows that they just do whatever they want. If they are ever caught the only "punishment" is to give some tax payer money to someone.
Former police officer gets probation for tanning videos
Undercover cop arrested in NYC biker gang attack
You were saying?
Free Martian Whores!