Slashdot Mirror
Why We Need Certain Consumer Drone Regulations
stowie writes: In the last week, state and federal firefighters have fought more than 270 wildfires in California. Here's the problem: firefighters are seeing more unauthorized consumer drones flying over active wildfires. Maybe the drone owners don't know or maybe they don't care, but temporary flight restrictions are placed over wildfire areas due to the aircraft used to help contain the fires. The aircraft used to knock down flames and survey burn areas have to cease operations when there is a drone in the air.
The title of the linked story is, "Here’s a Perfect Example of Why We Need More Consumer Drone Regulation". It sounds like the existing regulation covers this just fine. Just nobody knows how to enforce it yet.
Why do we need new laws for stuff the existing ones cover?
Let them clear the airspace.
No, the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace. The FAA should regulate drones as any other aircraft, and make a clear distinction between a "drone" and an RC toy.
That means that drone operators must comply with FAA rules, check weather briefings and NOTAMs before every flight and stay the F out of a TFR.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace.
The FAA already has that authority. People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.
Nine people were killed in South Carolina last week. Clearly, South Carolina needs to make murder illegal.
The guy wasn't doing anything wrong. If a damn airplane or helicopter is afraid to run into a drone, that's their own fault. The libs always want to regulate everything to death. The firefighters should just let it be...if he was buzzing around their heads or some shit then that would be understandably interfering. But he was not. This idea that we need to destroy innovation... it's unamerican. The video he shot was very cool...and could have been educational to some. I just think some people are afraid of the future.
You think flying an object into a plane's engine, potentially causing it to crash and causing massive damage to the ground, extending the length of the fire, and the death of everyone on board, to be "american", "very cool", "educational", and "innovative"?
I think it's stupid. Helicopters already give you a view of the fire from above, if that's really what you want, but the pilots there know what flight regulations are - not to mention have some actual training. On top of that, your right to fly a recreational vehicle is trumped by the right of the firefighters to save lives or limit damage, flying one yourself and interfering with their job in just plain inconsiderate - which I suppose might be "very cool" and "innovative" to you...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
"heavy fines" how ....national drone registry?
Manned aircraft have to carry transponders and broadcast their license code. It's not unreasonable that "drones" (etc.) which can reasonably easily interfere with aircraft (anything with more than 500' of range might be one possible criteria) should carry a low-power transponder which can be used to ID them. It could work like active RFID, and only broadcast when ID is requested.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.
Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.
Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.
Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.
a big tangle if nylon fishing line
Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.
I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.
Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Clearly, South Carolina needs to make murder illegal.
Everyone would rather outlaw a flag instead.
This sort of comment infuriates me. The fact is that flying any sort of aircraft is risky and lives are on the line, moreso with aerial fire fighting. Any risk that can be eliminated should be. A drone may be small and unlikely to damage full scale aircraft but why take that risk? To do so is foolish and stupid. Like a lot of drone kiddies seem to be. Keeping idiots with their drones away from airports, highways, fire fighting, etc should be done because it's the smart and prudent thing to do.
Given the fairly limited range of the radios used to control said drones
Some people use UHF channels to control the "drone" (multirotor) the record distance is up in the tens of kilometers.
The rest I agree with, since it's my hobby and it's rapidly becoming regulated or plain illegal to do what I love, these people piss me off something fierce.
I don't fly over 400 feet up, over people or property, and certainly not near an airport.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
A drone sitting over the firefighters or behind them is going to be completely out of the flight line.
Firefighting aircraft do not appear magically directly over a fire and then magically disappear after dumping their loads. They have to get from the landing area to the fire and then back again. As a drone operator, you have NO IDEA what the flight path of the firefighting aircraft will be since they have to consider weather and winds and desired destinations in their planning.
And it's not a "flight line" -- that's the place where the airplanes park.
Yes, there will be exceptions, but you can't make stupid illegal.
You can make "dangerous" illegal. And putting an aircraft into a no-fly zone just to take pictures is not just stupid, it is dangerous -- which is why they put temporary flight restrictions over active fires in the first place.
I'd place my money on 30 something male with a good job in the tech industry.
Probably also has quite a few bitcoins and hangs out on Reddit and /.