Slashdot Mirror
CNN Gets a First-Of-Its-Kind Waiver To Fly Drones Over Crowds (techcrunch.com)
The FAA has granted CNN a waiver that allows it to fly its Vantage Robotics Snap drone over open-air crowds of people at altitudes of up to 150 feet. "This is a new precedent in this kind of waiver: Previous exemptions allowed flight of drones over people in closed set operations (like for filmmaking purposes) and only when tethered, with a max height of 21 feet," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The new waiver granted to CNN, as secured through its legal counsel Hogan Lovells, allows for flight of the Vantage UAV (which is quite small and light) above crowds regardless of population density. It was a big win for the firm and the company because it represents a change in perspective on the issue for the FAA, which previously viewed all requests for exceptions from a "worst-case scenario" point of view. Now, however, the FAA has accepted CNN's "reasonableness Approach," which takes into account not just the potential results of a crashed drone, but also the safe operating history of the company doing the flying, their built-in safety procedures, and the features included on the drone model itself that are designed to mitigate the results of any negative issues.
He can't even keep fake CNN drones out of the fake sky with his fake Presidency! What a great invention of his, this word Fake.
1. Attend newsworthy open-air event.
2. Look for CNN drone, stand underneath.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Compared to a camera crane, it's pretty light-weight.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
you know for a fact that now they've gotten the blessing for this .. they will no doubt test the boundaries on an increasing scale.. Closer, lower, closer still.
Waiting for it be within spitting distance of some window of someone they are trying to report on (read spy on).
This will be followed by hundreds of other "news" (I give that term very loose meaning) organizations requesting the same.
It will be up to the person (victim) to take these idiots to court to slap them down repeatedly (and at their own expense). CNN knows this costly route will not be used by most
What would CNN actually need a from for any way? Its not like they actually check any facts and half the time they arnt even reporting from the correct location live. I'm still waiting on CNN to read me the Wiki Leaks since its illegal for us common folk to do such a task. If they gave ISIS permission to fly drowns at least I could believe the reports produced by it and posted on their media.
... announced long ago by FAA.
The drone industry has more money than tobacco and gun combined.
They will be ubiquitous. CNN is the test case.
They floodgate are open.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is great. Now CNN will be able to be even more selective about showing one side of a story and not the other side.
If no drones are allowed, then any drone is easily identified as a problem, and can be dealt with.
If any drones are allowed, then how will illicit drones be identified?
Meanwhile, in a different country, I've been doing this for the past 2 years (for a small company, not a big news org).
This has failed servo, failed ESC, failed battery, failed nut on prop, failed motor, failed transmitter, failed receiver , etc., etc. etc. =====>>>>>> LAWSUIT written all over it.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Not the typical drone design with shrouded blades and snaps apart (bits flying off reduce impact from bulk bits). The safety elements incorporated in this design is clearly the reason for acceptance, this really needs to be pointed out, vs idiots who take an drone with exposed blade amongst people.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
...like CNN's ratings.
If CNN wants to be stupid and take risks that endanger others fine. I don't really care. We just need to hold CNN to account for any injuries or damage CNN causes. It's no different than driving a car. We're all a risk to pedestrians on the roads and other vehicles. What should happen in a free market is CNN should take out insurance to protect itself from accidents and cover any injuries it causes. While I'm against mandating insurance for drones I'm all for holding drone operators liable for any damage. New Hampshire doesn't mandate insurance and yet it's got the highest percentage of insurance drivers in the country! Imagine that. The free market at work. Basically not mandating insurance reduces the amount that insurance companies can charge thereby keeping insurance prices within a sane range that more people will be able to afford and ultimately end up getting insured even where they don't technically have to.
Will CNN report if one of their drones crashed in a crowd?
Watch James Oâ(TM)Keefe get his own drones and do a smashing expose where he gets CNNâ(TM)s drones to admit their fabrications on camera.
"Vantage UAV" is a service, so it is not accurate to state that the drones are "quite small and light". Several different drones are pictured on their website.
Now whenever Trump complains baselessly at his "rallies" that CNN doesn't dare show the size of the crowd (the always do, actually) we can get a drone-lens view of his orangeness from entirely new and revealing angles. Weeeeee!
woooohoooo I get to play with my flying toys without the stupid "drone" fear. Oh yea, im not CNN and didnt "dontate" alot of money to someones campaign, so nope, they will still come after me for flying my toys away from people
Russians who colluded with Trump, no doubt.
I don't care what the FAA or CNN claim. The law must apply to everybody or it's not a law at all. If there is no true law restricting drone flight, then anybody can do that. But if there is a law but CNN somehow got a waiver, then the law applies to nobody and anybody can do it.
No exception.
I don't want a bunch of fucking drones over my head.