Chinese Tourist's Drone Crashes Into Taipei 101 Skyscraper

Taco Cowboy writes that a Chinese tourist has been hit with a fine of $48,000 (NT $1.5 Million) after his drone crashed into the Taipei 101 skyscraper. The tourist, 30-year-old Yan Yungfan, was supposedly attempting to film Taipei's cityscape on Tuesday morning with a remotely controlled Phantom 3 UAV when he lost control of the drone, causing it to hit the side of Taipei 101 at around the 30th floor. No one was injured in the incident and only minor damage was sustained by the building's glass windows, but the video immediately became a viral sensation after it was uploaded online. Taipei 101 said in a statement that there have been three incidents of drones crashing around the building since mid-June, with the first two cases taking place on June 15 and June 20. No injuries have resulted from these crashes, but I wouldn't want to get hit by a 3-pound object falling from that height.

Comments

We need better legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly drones should be regulated as RC aircraft. We don't fucking allow RC aircraft to be flown in the middle of a city, why the hell would we be ok with drones ?
Use them where it makes sense, in parks, in areas that are predisposed for such things. So that if it falls out of the sky it won't harm/kill someone.

Re:We need better legislation

[kheldan]

At the rate this is going, drones available to the general public are going to become a quickly-disappearing fad, as they become outlawed entirely, and you can thank idiots like this Yan Yungfan, and all the idiots here in the U.S. who are getting their toys in the way of wildfire fighters' aircraft, idiots flying them into other restricted airspace (e.g., the White House and environs) and other idiots I'm not aware of, who either aren't capable of being responsible, or can't be bothered to be responsible with their toys.

Re:We need better legislation

[kylemonger]

I think it equally likely that manufacturers will regulate themselves semi-voluntarily rather than be forced out of business. They'll make drones that refuse to fly in restricted locations. They'll make drones that land automatically if their batteries get low or if they lose the control signal or if ambient wind speeds are too high or any of a dozen dicey conditions in order to mollify angry legislators. Drones without the safety "smarts" will be banned.

Re:We need better legislation

[janoc]

"Drones" - aka small multirotor helis - are regulated as RC model aircraft in most countries already. Not sure where you are, but perhaps make sure that you actually know what laws are on the books already before calling for more regulation.

The problem is not lack of regulation but the fact that 99.9% of the owners of these things have no clue about the rules that actually apply to their hobbies. RC model flyers have been rarely caught doing similar stupidities before because:
a) it is hard to do with a fast moving fixed wing plane,
b) traditional model helis are tricky to fly and very expensive, few people would risk their toy like this after they have finally mastered it,
c) few RC models were computerized to the degree that they essentially "fly themselves", including GPS waypoints and what not. RC flying was always about the flying skills, not taking videos for Youtube.
d) the enforcement was caught flatfooted, the few RC model owners around have newer posed problems but now every yahoo has a gizmo that requires no skills to fly and don't give a shit about any rules (if they are even aware of them).

As I see it, unless the police is allowed to take these things out by force, then things aren't going to change. Tracking down an owner of a drone hoovering somewhere high in the air autonomously is pretty much impossible unless you are very lucky. They don't need to emit radio signal continuously, the gizmo can navigate by GPS so unless you literally run into a guy with the controller you will not find him.

And as regulation is concerned - that could actually use to be relaxed quite a bit. E.g. in most of Europe if you want to record video using an RC plane/heli/drone for commercial purposes, the rules are very draconian - you need essentially a full private pilot license as if you were flying a full sized plane, you must always have a spotter next to you, are not allowed to fly beyond line of sight, etc. And this applies regardless of whether you are recording over a crowd of people (which requires additional permits) or only some fields for a local farmer ...

Re:We need better legislation

[TWX]

The two closest local hobby stores receive their product shipped directly from China. If any drones are manufactured for places without these kinds of restrictions, they will end up in the US supply chain even if 'reputable' companies try to add such controls. Also factor-in unlicensed product copying and I don't think that it's possible.

It's too bad, really. Back when the barrier to the RC aircraft hobby was high (expensive devices, very high likelihood of crashing and destroying the craft) the number of incidents were low because irresponsible people simply couldn't afford to participate for the most part. Now that it's cheap and easy, a lot of people that shouldn't get into the hobby are able to get into the hobby, and are going to get the hobby banned.

Re:We need better legislation

[janoc]

Except it is regulated as one. In fact, most countries don't make any distinction whether the RC model is fixed wing, heli, multirotor or whatever. Once it is unmanned and falls into the "model" category, it is regulated the same.

That most owners don't know that there are *gasp* laws and rules that apply to their toys is not the problem with the laws, unfortunately.

Re:We need better legislation

[bluescrn]

But where do you draw the line between banned 'drones', and, say, Air Hogs toys (lightweight toy-grade RC aircraft)

There's toy quadcopters as light as 11.5g now (Hubsan Q4 Nano) - they're great fun to fly around the living room or office. Do these get banned, too?

What about the 'powered paper airplane' kits? are they now 'drones' too?

Re:We need better legislation

[ScentCone]

In the US, yes. It makes no difference if it's a 50-pound Octo carrying a Red Epic shooting a Mercedes commercial, or a 15-gram kid's toy. In places like all of the US's national parkland, rivers, and coasts administered by the Park Service, they are all 100% banned. Likewise for 30 miles around Washington DC, without any regard to size or range. And no, it's not about "drones," it's about all RC (or autonomous) flying contraptions of any type or size, period. And they're just getting started.

Re:We need better legislation

[stephanruby]

Frankly drones should be regulated as RC aircraft.

The guy might be fined the equivalent of $48,000.

Unless the guy is a multi-millionaire, it sounds like they're being regulated just fine.

Re:We need better legislation

[TWX]

It isn't just poor people that are irresponsible, it's that people are irresponsible when things do not cost them very much. People do not respect things that are inexpensive to them.

Re:We need better legislation

[recharged95]

is not lack of regulation but the fact that 99.9% of the owners of these things have no clue
Not only that, but the companies whom heads “don’t think it’s a big deal,” and providing no real solution to the evident growing problem, yet turn out software and hardware bugs... (every vendor is guilty). The game and the players are basically moving too fast, all because of those investor dollars. It's a technology that even the professional still doesn't understand yet.

a) it is hard to do with a fast moving fixed wing plane,
Considering some autopilots can run on fixed wing nowadays--being hard is not so hard anymore, especially with FPV.

b) traditional model helis are tricky to fly and very expensive, few people would risk their toy like this after they have finally mastered it,
Again, some autopilots can let you flip a switch and they will hold on a dime to keep you out of trouble.

c) few RC models were computerized to the degree that they essentially "fly themselves", including GPS waypoints and what not. RC flying was always about the flying skills, not taking videos for Youtube.
Heck R/C cars can do waypoints now...

Just wait folks, the world is getting started with mobile robots (which R/C is becoming) that can be autonomous from a path control standpoint.

Re:We need better legislation

[tlhIngan]

There's no more point in banning drones than there is in banning butter-knives. Both are useful and very safe ways to perform a task -- however, both can be MISUSED when in the hands of idiots. Far better that we simply make sure that any idiot who misuses *any* technology is dealt with appropriately. The only alternative to ensuring public safety is to have us all fitted with straightjackets and locked into our own private padded rooms -- for our safety.

The easy way is licensing.

Right now the regulations are a bit cumbersome, but they're there - they're aircraft, and to fly an aircraft, you need a license. Or rather, you need a license, a medical, and a radio license. (It's important to note that the whenever any civil aviation authority wants to ground a pilot, they don't actually take away their license. Since the three documents are required to legally fly, they take away the medical certificate. (And the medical is often temporarily suspended - either by the pilot or a doctor on other occasions, so it's not a big deal and incurs minimal to no paperwork on either party's side)).

Since there's no current syllabus for drone pilots, they're lumped in with every other pilot as well.

That's the most likely end result - and I'm sure the FAA and others are looking to see what the trend is. And I'm sure the RC groups are going to have their say as well because they're also seeing the same news reports, and they know if it keeps up, even their hobby can be regulated. They may actually champion an industry-standard form of self licensing - better they do it than the government).

Flying Cars

[SuperKendall]

So the wave of drone accidents and regulations being reported on recently are starting to paint a great picture of why we don't have flying cars yet, nor will we.

Re:WHO World Health Organisation data

[eulernet]

You should compare the rate of accidents, not two unrelated values.

Maybe there are 10000 drones in the world, and 100 accidents every year, which gives a ratio of 10%.

How much cars do we have in the world ?
I very much doubt cars have such a high rate of accidents.

Perhaps if you multiply the number of drones by a factor of 10, you'll be able to count deaths.