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!
(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.
/ 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.