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.
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.
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.
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!
Sensationalism, for sure.
To that end, everything the FAA regulates is domestic. Otherwise it would be the IAA.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
Alcohol is regulated and drunk driving is illegal.
People flying remote-controlled planes and quadcopters should be required to pass a class and get a license or something.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I'm pretty sure if it's a good idea to have regulations on drones in one single country in the world, they're a good idea everywhere.
/ 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.
The term "Begging the question" is the obscure name of an logical fallacy (circular reasoning), used only by people only when talking about logical fallacies. It uses the archaic form of "begging" to mean "assuming". And it is never used conversationally.
The phrase "which begs the question [followed by the question]" is a simple English phrase that means no more than the words it uses, used conversationally and understood by anyone who can speak English.
Everyone who learns about the former goes through a period where they bristle at the latter. It make them feel superior, but it demonstrates the opposite.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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
I'm pretty sure if it's a good idea to have regulations on drones in one single country in the world, they're a good idea everywhere.
The world is not under the FAA's jurisdiction, which was the point I was making. But yea, you're pretty spot-on: "what's good for the goose" and all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
By labelling a remote control airplane a "drone", you can scare the public into thinking that there's roving bands of high school kids dropping Preadator UAVs on top of their babies playing in the backyard. In reality they can justify banning the decades old hobby of flying RC aircraft, and companies like pork processing plants won't have to worry about being caught dumping pig blood into public waterways via some guy with an RC plane with a camera.
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?
People have no clue on risks. There are far higher chances to die from alcohol (not just driving), accidents, or gun shots than from "they must be regulated!" technologies. But still alcohol and tobacco are things accepted and promoted, and having a gun and a car are practically requirements to feel like a citizen.
Guns (that are only meant to kill) should be far more regulated than drones. And use and abuse of addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol should be something with campaigns against them (not prohibition, but no promotion neither)... and probably sugary drinks should fit in that set there too.
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
This another "It's OK for us to spy on everyone, but civilians better not think that they can have drones too, because those are OUR TOYS, GODDAMNIT!"
The NSA no longer distinguishes between US citizens and citizens of other countries. We are all the enemy now.
If that weren't true, they wouldn't be joking about hit squads on their critics and concentration camps for reporters. If it weren't true, they wouldn't be lying their asses off ever times Gen Alexander or James Clapper goes before Congress or the news media.
Eisenhower was president when I was born, and I've never seen this kind of open hostility toward basic constitutional principles of liberty and basic civil rights. Even during the Nixon Administration, there wasn't this kind of unapologetic disregard for basic rights of citizens in what's supposed to be a free society.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm pretty sure if it's a good idea to have regulations on drones in one single country in the world, they're a good idea everywhere.
We already have regulations. It says so right in the summary: the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan. That fact that operators are violating existing regulations is in no way evidence that we need more regulations (that will presumably also be violated).
This is just an attempted power grab by authoritarians. They want government drones to spy on us, but they don't the people to be able to look back at them.
Regulation is a poor substitute for common sense.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
We need to invent the NSAMA, that would take care of the drone problem.
I'll let you figure out the acronym.
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.
yeah, thanks obama.
The only thing you need to thank Obama for is to address the FAA's inability to enforce the existing regulations.
UAVs are already regulated under existing rules. For example, the term aircraft is defined as follows:
A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
A "drone" is a such a device. In theory, all aircraft (except toys, of course) are required to have an airworthiness certificate, as per FAR 91.203. And since the FAA requires a pilot's certificate for UA operation (see this), it is in practice impossible to legally fly a civilian drone for the simple reason that there is no certification category for such aircraft:
Is a FAA issued pilot certificate required to operate civil UAS?
Yes. If the aircraft is issued an airworthiness certificate a pilot certificate is required.
Summarizing: the regulations are there, they're just not enforced yet.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
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.
Damn. No more flying kites legally without a license.
(and before someone complains that the string somehow makes it "not flight," note that the FAA includes the tethered tow time for a glider as part of "flight time."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sorry, you missed it entirely.
FAA Advisory Circular 91 57, defines "model aircraft", they are not aircraft, nor are they required to operate under aircraft rules.
And in fact, any rules the FAA has regarding model aircraft are merely suggestions; "PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."
I'm not saying that takes them off the hook for being operated dangerously, but that is covered by other "intent to cause harm" laws, nothing from the FAA.
Yes, this New York guy was an idiot, and operating with reckless endangerment
The first AND only FAA case against model aircraft, is currently in court, and presently a motion to dismiss has been presented and is being considered.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Don't forget adding a regulation to forbid flying unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas?
of an logical fallacy
used only by people only when
Heh.
It make them feel superior, but it demonstrates the opposite.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
"..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!
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?
To be fair, the gliders you're talking about are generally tethered to something that flies, not something on the ground.
OK. Paper airplanes aren't tethered, and engage in free flight.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
FAA Advisory Circular 91 57, defines "model aircraft", they are not aircraft, nor are they required to operate under aircraft rules.
I beg to differ. A model aircraft is a toy version of a "real" aircraft. UAVs are in general not a toy, nor a model version of a real aircraft. They have no full-scale counterpart.
Furthermore, here is a quote from TFA:
Although small, the FAA considers it an "unmanned aircraft system."
In short, you haven't convinced me yet.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
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/
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
Is the other end attached to the ground, or to a towing aircraft?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.
The NSA no longer distinguishes between US citizens and citizens of other countries. We are all the enemy now.
I dont think it is necessary to consider citizens of other countries enemies by default either. There is a view of us against them, but that is from the controlling few inside of the NSA versus everyone else, no borders required.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan
Casteism
Plenty of model aircraft have been built and flown which aren't sale models of full-size aircraft. How about this foam approximation of a Star Destroyer?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBZcBLoPUEY
Is this any more or less a 'toy' or 'model aircraft' then a carefully crafted scale replica of a Spitfire?
What about the Hubsan X4 - or any of the many small, light, and fairly safe $100 'toy' quadcopters out there these days, do these not count as a toy/model either, due to drone paranoia?
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.
"UAVs are already regulated under existing rules. For example, the term aircraft [faa-aircra...cation.com] is defined as follows:
A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
So all paper airplanes made by kids meet that definition. Is that what you are implying?
"(except toys, of course)"
No that is the exact problem. There is no definition for "of course"
The First Person View R/C aircraft I fly every other day is a toy. It is for a hobby. That it somehow magically changes into something else when I fly it for pay is ridiculous. I am just now flying my toy for pay. Maybe my profession is now taxed, but the rules that apply to my toy are no different.
Dad, offers his kid $.50 to make a good paper airplane. New set of rules?
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
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!
the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan.
But that isn't really true.
A standard "line of sight" controlled R/C plane is an "unmanned aerial vehicle", but isn't explicitly banned from flying over crowded areas. Not by the FAA, anyways -- Manhattan might have regulations of their own, and it might be a controlled airspace which would complicate things -- but wouldn't automatically and completely ban use of such aircraft.
The "FAA Advisory Circular 91 57" basically says not to do so, but it's advisory -- it doesn't amount to a forbidding of such an action. The AMA regulations largely mirror what the circular says -- but it's just rules for a hobby association, and the only thing you lose by not adhering to them is you risk your membership and your insurance through the group (if you're a member, of course.)
This quadcopter may or may not have been an actual drone -- I don't know if it was autonomously controlled or not. Maybe it was just a standard R/C model flown in a crowded location, and just happened to have a camera on it? I'd expect a little more ... precision from something that was flying itself. What seems more likely is that the pilot wasn't very experienced and lost track of the orientation of the craft. If so, he should have never tried to fly in such crowded conditions, at least until he got the hang of the quadcopter and maybe not even then.