Are Tethers the Answer To the Safety Issues of Follow-Me Drone Technology?

Hallie Siegel (2973169) writes Camera-equipped follow-me drone technology is hitting the scene in spades, promising extreme sports enthusiasts and others amazing aerial shots. Imagine, your own dynamic tripod that follows you on command. But what about the safety issue of having follow-me drones crowding the ski slopes? The tethered Fotokite addresses these concerns while sidestepping FAA regulations.

Comments

Isn't this MORE dangerous?

[popo]

Sorry, but the logic here escapes me. Aren't the danger of crossed-tethers exponentially greater than the danger of colliding drones?

This and more

[MRe_nl]

I really don't want (amateur) pilots flying swarms of anything over my head at the beach/ski-slope/swimming pool. And tethering the drones to the pilots will mitigate what exactly?

Re:This and more

[Anonymous Coward]

It will mitigate legal trouble, as long as nothing happens. A tethered object isn't subject to the same rules as a free flying object. The pilot will still be liable for damaged caused, but not for breaking FAA rules. It's in the blurb, so mod this redundant.

Re:This and more

[rHBa]

In many Alpine ski resorts there are a lot of paraglider and speedrider pilots (of which I am one, in Chamonix).

Although we're not allowed to fly directly above pistes I can imagine these drones being very popular off-piste (i.e backcountry) where we often paraglide. A collision with an untethered drone *probably* wouldn't be too dangerous assuming the rotor blades are surrounded with a shroud but if it were tethered to the skier/boarder then the likelihood of it becoming tangled is quite high and could easily cause major problems for the paraglider pilot.

Luckily Chamonix is a very traditional resort so I'd expect these drones to be banned anywhere near the piste and (hopefully) off-piste as well, however it would be almost impossible to police off-piste!

Re:This and more

[thegarbz]

Funny I think the same thing about people with cars and guns. Yet somehow as a species we're content with the massive injury and death rate from those activities but a petrified from the highly remote chance that we may get killed by a terrorist, attacked by a shark, or hit by a falling drone.

Re:This and more

[thegarbz]

Ahhh you must be one of those, "He mentioned guns so he must thing it should all be illegal, I better rebuff" types.

No, couldn't be further from the truth, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was saying that compared to getting killed by falling drones the above list is far more dangerous to the general health of people, and THEY ARE ALL LEGAL.

So everyone needs to take a deep breath, get some perspective and realise that getting killed by a flying drone is about likely as a terrorist attack. You should worry more about driving to a ski slope than dying on it.

Re: This and more

[Bender Unit 22]

Because for some reason people think I am interested in watching hours of videos of them going down a slope, riding a horse or pretending they are in Tour de France.
And they don't even bother to edit it down to a couple of minutes.
No, they have hours of footage showing off their below average skills.
I do like seeing bits of vacation videos but not really when it's just video selfies.

Re: This and more

[ColdWetDog]

I see you've not been over to YouTube recently.

Re:Wild West Yahoos

[Bing Tsher E]

A 12 guage is also a useful 'remote control' for drones. You don't even need radio contact.