Slashdot Mirror
Drone Crashes, Missing Champion Skier By Inches (cnn.com)
HughPickens.com writes: NBC reports that defending World Cup champion Marcel Hirscher, who won silver in the slalom at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, had a lucky escape after he narrowly avoided being hit by a falling drone. Hirscher was on his second run in a World Cup slalom race at Madonna di Campiglio in Italy when a remote-controlled drone with a mounted camera slammed down on the piste inches behind him. "This is horrible," Hirscher said after the event. "This can never happen again. This can be a serious injury." The International Ski Federation (FIS) released a statement on its website apologizing for the "unfortunate accident." But some saw the lighter side announcing that the drone wars had shifted to the ski slopes. "Man, I'd watch a lot more winter sports if this was a standard part of the game," tweeted Marc Andreessen. The company responsible for the drone, sports marketing agency Infront, said its initial investigation "indicates a malfunction of the drone." "The most likely reason is a strong and unforeseen interference on the operating frequency, leading to limited operability," Infront said in a statement. "The pilot followed the official security procedure, purposely flying the drone as close as possible to the ground before releasing it. The aim was to destroy the drone, in order to prevent it from losing control."
Given the circumstances of the apology, it seems obvious that this drone was put there by the FIS and went awry. While a drone that was officially put there by the ski federation is still a drone, the subtext is that the accident proves we must regulate the use of drones by private individuals. If the drone didn't come from a private individual, this subtext is false.
Sure. That's common in most sports. Hockey fans who want more fights, skiing fans who like ski cross, American football fans who don't want the game banned, etc.
The possibility of crashes and injuries make otherwise boring or pointless games more exciting.
There are no conceivable circumstances where it would be OK or legal to shoot at a drone. Just because you don't like the things or disagree with them flying over or around your property, you have absolutely no right to shoot at any more than you can shoot at cars passing on adjacent roads.
If you don't like what a drone is doing, your recourse is to call the police and complain. That's all.
Sig for hire.
1) Dog runs from bushes and attacks drone, does damage. Who pays?
Dog owner.
2) Child runs to drone, is hurt. Whose fault?
Child
3) Drone fails in flight, crashes, kills people, destroys property. Amazon pays more than all profits from drone delivery.
Not a question but amazon's fault
4) Teenager is in a field trying a BB gun, shoots at drone. Drone crashes. What then?
Teenager at fault.
5) Someone is testing a Tesla coil in his garage. The huge sparks emit electromagnetic interference, making communication with the drone impossible. Drone cannot be controlled, destroys property. Who pays?
Amazon pays. Failsafe control is part of even the cheapest drones, expect it to be standard.
6) Drone noise and danger reduces the value of houses in a neighborhood. An adjoining county has restrictions against drones; the value of the property there goes up.
No one's at fault. Property values are fungible. I highly doubt the value of land would be lower for a several second drone delivery than a delivery truck driving down the road constantly. You can never buy a house and expect stable property value, and if you do then I have a ... house to sell you. It's in a good location, I promise. *wink*
7) RFI, Radio Frequency Interference: Someone is outside on the street welding something using an electric welder. Electric welding generates interference on ALL frequencies. The drone might receive nothing except noise.
See #5
8) Drone is stolen.
Thief is at fault.
Look drones are not magical. They are not new or unique. None of what you question is even remotely a legal grey area. If you replace the word drone with person, delivery van, or any other word than the mythical "drone" you find so confusing then all cases are very clear cut. But I'm sure you know the risks better than a multi-national megacorproation which armies of R&D teams, rooms full of bored lawyers and lots of money to throw at the problem
And people wonder why the FAA wants to register drones.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The FAA has already banned all commercial use (as seen in the event in question). They then are willing to hand out some waivers, provided the person operating the RC aircraft is an actual certified pilot (as in, legally allowed to climb in a Cessna and fly it around), and many other very severe restrictions.
The "registration" program is aimed solely at hobby users. As in, people who've just bought their 13 year old daughter a 9-ounce pink plastic toy copter from a mall kiosk. As in those old guys who build balsa-wood scale model airplanes and fly them around in circles at their model airplane club. That's what the FAA you're praising is now requiring. If grandpa doesn't register his 50-year-old balsa wood model, he faces a $20,000 civil fine, an even larger criminal fine, and years in prison.
If a sports company operating (what is likely) a professional drone almost mames someone at the world cup, what do you Jim Bob will do at the county fair.
If a professional baker runs into a pedestrian while operating his delivery truck, just THINK what you personally might do with your own truck at the county fair, right? Yeah.
Regardless, the Obama administration's new toy RC registration scheme is being implemented directly in conflict with the 2012 FMRA law which forbids the FAA from placing any regulatory burden on hobbyists. The administration is getting around this by doing it under the auspices of the Department Of Transportation, instead. You know, because 13 year old Suzy's 9-ounce plastic toy copter is definitely a form of transportation.
And man, those pro drones are really expensive.
Yeah, and so is a BMW motorcycle and the $25,000 broadcast camera it's rear-facing passenger is using when getting video of the Tour de France when
that
camera platform crashes in and around competitors. No different than the skiing example in the OP.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Courts are siding with shooters who were on their private property in cases of privacy violation.
"Courts?"
You mean one judge in Kentucky who couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the telemetry and video from the quad that showed it not only wasn't "hovering" over the property in question, but it was actually moving past at 200' up. There was no invasion of privacy, no more than there is when someone drives past on the street. The case will likely be appealed, as the guy not only illegally discharged his firearm, he shot at an aircraft (which the FAA says you cannot do under any circumstances, ever).
Should you be able to shoot at a kid who climbs over your fence to cut through to the next yard? Because that's actual trespassing, unlike flying at a couple hundred feet in the public airspace. Glad I'm not your neighbor.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.