Slashdot Mirror
Drone Hobbyists Find Flaws In 'Close Call' Reports
An anonymous reader writes: The people and agencies pushing for strict drone regulation have no trouble coming up with a list of dangerous drone-related incidents. This includes not only the recent drone crashes that have been picked up by the media, but also reports of "close calls," where drones have allegedly approached full-size aircraft. But a new study by drone hobbyists finds that most of these "close calls" were anything but. Of 764 such incidents reported to the FAA, only 27 were actually described as "near misses" by the pilots involved. None of the incidents involved mid-air collisions, and some have involved military drones rather than hobbyist ones. The people who did the study suggest that we should find a better way of classifying these drone-related situations so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations.
a new "do not fly" TSA classification
Drunk drivers find flaws in DUI reports... even one is too many.
"Drone hobbyists" redefine "close call" as "near miss". News at 11.
They can stick their heads in the sand until they get some collisions and it's too late to have any reasonable regulations or they could start figuring out how to keep drones out of aircraft corridors.
>> we should find a better way of classifying X so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations
Why start now? Besides, it's not the legislators that get involved in "regulations" these days, instead its often committees full of unelected people working for this or that agency.
A operator running a drone that can hover near motionless may not consider things a 'near miss'. On the other hand, an airline pilot flying a jumbo jet that can not be maneuvered travelling at several hundred miles an hour is something completely different. At the speeds Jumbo jets travel, by the time they see something as small as a drone it's already passed by them. That's a near miss. They saw it. There's no time for them to avoid an object like that. So while the drone operators are bitching that - hey I was near a half mile or a mile away. Or even two miles away. The airline pilots are saying - get the hell out of my way. I can't turn and by the time I see your little hobby I'm either running it over or passed it putting my entire crew and my passengers at risk. It's not even an argument.
Government, along with its corporate masters and its enforcement arm, stand to lose in a big way if they have to endure the same kind of "eye in the sky" scrutiny they subject the public to on a regular basis.
It only stands to reason that they'd contrive excuses to forbid average people from having access to the same kind of toys they use.
And they aren't about to make the same kind of mistake they made with cell phones. If police and their masters had known how effective cell phone cameras would be in exposing widespread physical abuse of civilians, they'd have made it illegal to point any kind of recording device at a cop years ago.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations
Pfft! Since when have legislators ever cared about the accuracy of information when drafting bills? If Congress decides it wants to demonize hobbyist drones, it's going to do so regardless of what the FAA reports.
Since 9-11, concresscritters on both sides of the aisle have habitually either knowingly and willingly consumed disinformation, or ignored accurate information when it didn't support their predetermined goals.
I can see the fnords!
drones are bad! that's the mantra and the panic that ensues. I say follow the money and see who stands to gain or lose from drone users (from hobbyists to professional and government uses). There you will find your real motivation for such panic.
I've struggled with how pilots flying at 100+ mph can honestly report sites of hand size drones and consider it legitimate information. I remember a fire fighting pilot being interviewed about how unsuccessful the fire fighting effort was because of drones-- let's see there's smoke, fire, debris, stationary obstacles and everything else and he actually had time to recognize hampered by drones. I think it's panic, fear and just opportunity to blame something new with lots of unknowns, than than realistic (before everyone gets all cocky eyed, I do hold a recreational pilot license which I've had since the 90s, PDK of all places)
That's not to say there is potential for a drone could cause harm. However, I'm sure the panic is driven more by money and control than common sense.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
I think again we see another agency too lame to address the ever growing problem and not equipped to make rules. This drone issue will only get worse and it appears that law enforcement and the FAA have very little tools to track down any of these illegal flying drone's. Unless someone turns the person or person's in their seems to be very little anyone can do. Now the worst will come when we have thousands of these flying around with no real traffic control, very little experienced licensed operators and a whole lot of other air traffic trying to navigate around them with little in terms of communication between them. Suck a big drone into a jet engine and you have a nightmare potential. Frankly if the FAA cannot impose proper management rules soon it should put a ban on any drone flying above 1000ft or so and do it fast. In fact mandate that all drones sold unless having special permits would have software controlling their altitude.
Who are these hobbyists?
Did anybody think to ask the AMA? The organization that kept RC hobbyists out of these kinds of troubles for 50+ years before RTF quads became the latest craze.
Quad hobbyists need only pay attention to the god damn rules that were set before they were born, not get all self righteous about things they apparently don't care to understand.
It's really pretty simple: Don't fly near airports, stay under 400 feet, if you see _any_ traffic, land, don't fly directly over crowds
They could be doing something productive like me, flying a scale predator drone near paranoid groups protesting.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Private use of drones should be banned.
If one of them suckers comes over my land, it is coming down. Before you drone jockeys get your knickers in a knot, my shotgun has a range of less than a 1000 feet. Even less when pointed upwards...
How about actually reading TFA (or at least the summary) before making assine comments.
"so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations" Why on earth would they start using accurate information now? It's never stopped them before from passing laws on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.
The FAA has rule for what a near miss is, it is not an opinion.
If a Jet Pilot can see your Hobby Grade Drone at all you are flying in the wrong place.
If you can see the Airport you are wrong.
If you live under the flight path, can't fly.
Hobbyists have been flying Remote controlled Aircraft for decades, without issues.
Drone Hobbyists seem to have issues. Why is that.
Who listens to reason? If God wanted us to have drones he would have given each of us four tiny propellers.
2) The US government uses them to spy on and kill people.
3) Tools used by spy agencies to kill or spy on people need to be regulated.
4) Because they are new, we don't have any real regulations on them.
It seems obvious to me that we need not regulate drones. That does not mean outlaw - it means regulate. Forbid them from flying over private property without the owner's permission, forbid any technology designed without appropriate safety measures.
But there is surely room to allow use of drones on public lands and on private lands with permission from the owner.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
FAA rules on aircraft separation is quite strict. 1000 meters, horizontal separation and 1000 feet of vertical separation between aircraft. Any violation of this rule will be deemed to be an incident. It does not matter whether it results in any kind of accident or near misses. Any violation of separation has to be reported to the FAA and investigated by FAA. Not sure how the hobbyist organization determined separation. Also not sure if the hobbyists understand the significance of the rules and compliance by FAA.
It looks like some kind of lobbying, astro-turfing and pressure to be applied to FAA to go lenient on the drone industry. 20 pound soft birds do enormous damage to airplanes, 50 pound hard metal drones are really a serious threat.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
There have been two wildfires within 60 miles of me in the past week. In each fire there was a point when firefighters had to ground helicopter operations because of interfering private drones. The helicopters can't safely land with all the fire retardant they take off with, so they had to waste 500 gallons of fire retardant, just dumping it in the middle of nowhere. In one case the delay allowed the fire to make major progress and probably delayed containment by a couple days.
I'm all for declaring a permanent open season on unmanned aerial vehicles. Jamming, shotguns, surface-to-air missiles, whatever. I'm sick and tired of the crap that drone operators pull.
Members of the Congress and State/Local Legislators are the political equivalent to SlashDot readers/subscribers/comments.
They don't need the information or "facts"; they just need a summary in order to write a law.
In politics, as with SlashDot, lies work better than the truth any and every day.
The people who did the study suggest that we should find a better way of classifying these drone-related situations so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations.
I think the people who did the study have missed the point then. The point is that the FAA want to regulate drones, and so they need data to the support the need for drone regulation. Accurate data might prevent this.
didn't we have an example last week showing what happens when an engine decides to come apart?
it's not the legislators that get involved in "regulations" these days, instead its often unelected people working for this or that corporation, or industry funded lobbyist group.
There seems to be a lot of "not reading" around here today.
Baby girl in stroller slashed by shrapnel from falling drone in Pasadena
Drones are inherently dangerous. At a minimum, a drone that can hover has a lot of kinetic energy in it propellers, so when it crashes you can get events like the above.
People do things with drones that they would never do with traditional RC aircraft. People don't often fly RC planes near fires or airports.
On Google Maps go to "214 E Union St Pasadena, CA 91101". That is the intersection listed in the article. It's a business neighborhood two blocks from City Hall. There's no park around. There is a grassy area at the north end of the block, but not where you should be flying anything. It's insane that a child, or anyone else for that matter, would end up in danger at that location from something flying around.
Drone flyers are in a complete state of denial about the risks involved. All the comments claiming the 'close call' figures are incorrect are completely missing the point. As soon as a drone starts flying it is a potential danger. Ignoring this fact makes the danger even greater.
It's not about technology. It's about the users. Drones are just the latest example of how self centered fools can cause real world problems when they become enamored of technology and refuse to face facts. As long as the basic attitude is "drones are safe" then the problems will only get worse. Eventually this will lead to harsh legislation and everyone will scream about government repression. But remember, when an infant in a stroller gets struck in the head after a drone crash, there are bound to be repercussions.
Why is Snark Required?
...and Godwin'd
Saw the title after posting the comment, and felt sheepish. Unfortunately, /. won't allow me to delete the comment, so I get to continue feeling like a dumbass...
Which cockeyed optimist wrote this...? ONLY 27 near misses...? As a frequent flier, that's not very reassuring. But rest easy, says the author, "None of the incidents involved mid-air collisions." And that's not very comforting either. Perhaps we could do something a bit better before we have those mid-air collisions...? No, you can't toss a lighted match into the forest, no you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre (unless there's a fire) and no you can't fly your drone next to an aircraft. Why is that so hard to understand...?
The AMA is all about safety.
What is their goal in this?
They can't be saying that there is no problem here.
Making the problem seem smaller might head off impending draconian regs.
But I thought they already got a law for that.
I know there is actually a problem to fix here.
I personally have had a drone encounter at 2000AGL where I had to change direction to avoid what looked like an impending too close encounter with a little friend.
I have no reason to suspect that the AMA was in anyway involved.
If they had been involved, it likely would not have happened in the first place.
We need them to be involved in all drone flights.
This article seems to be working in the reverse direction?
I find it funny someone thinks legislators will use facts and data to make a decision rather than money and favors.