The biggest problem with drones is identifying who owns the aircraft. If a drone is photographed or found after a crash there is no way to find the owner. Perhaps one of the new regulations should be registration of drones and display of registration number much like regular aircraft. This should be a requirement for any non line of site drones.
I think requiring a regular pilot's license as going overboard. Pilot's licenses are very expensive and would put an excellent hobby out of reach of most people. That would be like requiring a vehicle license to ride a bicycle. Perhaps a drone license which has more emphasis on rules and regulations rather than piloting skill might be sufficient. I think that LOS flying should not require licensing.
keeping the model within his eyesight while holding a fairly conspicuous controller with antennas sticking out of it, and no extra laws are needed to catch and punish him, just a little police shoe-leather.
The drone was at least 2300 feet from the controller and therefore not as easily found as you may think. The controller could have been miles away.
There is a huge difference between a bird which stops and engine and a drone with a lithium battery which can explode in the engine causing much more damage. That damage could break turbine fins which could take out fuel lines and puncture fuel tanks which could cause a major explosion or fire and take off the wing. In the case of the bird, no engine. In the case of the drone, no wing. Most aircraft can land with one engine out. Most aircraft fall out of the sky if they only have one wing. See the difference?
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.
Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.
when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.
So new laws against drone flying aren't going to have any effect on the outcome.
One new law could be a requiremet to register and display aircraft numbers on all non-line of site controlled aircraft. That way the owner can be identified if the aircraft is photographed of found after a collision. They may also be required to carry a small transponder. It is not about banning them but regulating them. Right now the regulations are very weak.
how is this any different than a large bird being pulled into the engine of an aircraft?
Birds generally don't carry lithium ion batteries that can act like a small bomb going off inside the engine. Also the body of the bird is generally softer than the metal that is used in the engines of drones.
The difference now being that with the advent of cheap cameras and video controllers these aircraft can be much further away from the operator than ever before.
The only thing in the article about what type of RC aircraft is as follows;
The pilot reported seeing a small, remote-control aircraft very close to his plane
It was at 2,300 feet and about five miles from the airport when it encountered the remote controlled jet.
How do you get F4 Phantom from that? There are many remote controlled jets out there that are not F4 Phantoms.
not a copter type "drone" that we think of now.
That may be your definition but many people, including me, define drone as any aircraft controlled outside of line of sight. The line of site being the dividing line between RC aircraft and drone.
Also of course, just as cabs sometimes do the Uber driver can refuse service if they are at all concerned about someone being so drunk they cannot be transported.
That is interesting because taxi drivers are not allowed to discriminate that way. the idea of "I don't like you I won't pick you up" does not fly in the taxi industry.
The main point is still valid. It is a fad right now as it is fun and interesting. The turn over rate in Uber is going to run through most of the available driver pretty quickly. This will happen after the professional taxis are driven out of business and we will be left with very few rides left and it will take a while for the professional business to re-build.
Except that many cabs are dispatched and use meters that report back to the dispatch. Generally when a meter is turned on it reports to the dispatch the the car is in use and not to send calls to it. You also forget about the cameras that are in most cabs.
The main reason for limited numbers of licenses is so that driver can make a living wage. I drove cab for 8 years and I could tell when too many cars were on the road. Our company rarely had all our cars on the road at the same time. There are a few problems that Uber causes to this model. 1. Gravy drivers. There will be drivers who only work the good times and do their regular jobs the rest of the time. This causes too many drivers to be available in good times and too few drivers available during off time. 2. Part time drivers. Someone who goes out a couple of hours a few times a week is not trying to make a living. They are doing it for "extra money". They don't care if they make less than a living wage because it is just mad money anyway. That have another job to pay the bills. 3. Fad. Sure there are quite a few Uber drivers right now. It is new and interesting. Wait till some drivers have to deal with obnoxious drinks puking in their car a few times. The fad will wear off and many Uber drivers will quit.
Wait till the cab companies can no longer find drivers for their cars because drivers can no longer make a living wage. Watch for cabs becoming almost unavailable during low times. People will sing a different tune when it takes a couple of hours to get a cab at 2AM.
Assuming you already have a breadboard and a few simple items, you can start using these CPUs with very little effort. Even if you have to buy everything, you could spend as little as $20 — perhaps $40 if you buy the Link board for debugging.
An arduino has many more connectors and is easier to use and therefore justifies a higher cost.
The cost estimates are done before anything happens. The reason for the 30% is sometimes developments have problems and cost more than expected. The banks demand that 30% as a contingency against problems. These kinds of problems happen more often than you think. Rarely does a developer actually make the 30%.
It's worth more because it peaks around peak consumption times when electricity is most expensive.
Yes but it never comes up to the retail price for electricity. Also the distribution companies know that so they average out the price during the day. Energy companies buy at a variable rate. Do you think consumers should too?
Anyway, the electricity grid is public infrastructure.
So what? No matter who owns it it still needs to be maintained and upgraded as more people use it. If you buy at the same price as you sell there is no money for that.
HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.
HIV survives for very short times outside the human body even in blood. Here is a quote from the CDC;
Except for rare cases in which children consumed food that was pre-chewed by an HIV-infected caregiver, HIV has not been spread through food. The virus does not live long outside the body. You cannot get it from consuming food handled by an HIV-infected person; even if the food contained small amounts of HIV-infected blood or semen, exposure to the air, heat from cooking, and stomach acid would destroy the virus.
This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability;
You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk. As for tractability, all Uber has is a cell phone number which could be a burner phone.
Consumers control this risk via lawsuit
which is useless agains a driver with no money and no insurance.
uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance.
Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.
You miss the whole point Most people can not tell the difference between a taxi and Uber and think they are taking the same risk when they are not.
Such an informed comment. You forget the construction workers who can't find jobs, the materials suppliers who can sell products, the businesses who can't find affordable office space, the people who can't find affordable homes, the land owners who can't sell their buildings. If new developments are not happening due to onerous requirements then all of these issues can occur.
I know it's a crappy deal because the electricity you sell back is somehow worth much less than the electricity you use,
It is worth less because someone has to pay for the infrastructure to transmit that electricity around and the backup capacity that would kick in on cloudy days. When you buy electricity you are not just purchasing electron but the all the infrastructure to support making sure you always get what you want. Energy produces sell at a wholesale price which is much lower than the retail price. People who sell to the grid at a lower price than they buy from are just being treated like any other electricity producer.
But there is a middle ground where the public good can be served along with them making a profit.
The problem is that most developments are already within a few percentage points of not being financed. Developers try to sell for as low as they can and still meet the bank's requirements for profit. They are competing with existing property. If the price of new property is too high it will not sell and the developer may never get financing again.
Slashdot Mirror
RC aircraft and drones are already regulated.
The biggest problem with drones is identifying who owns the aircraft. If a drone is photographed or found after a crash there is no way to find the owner. Perhaps one of the new regulations should be registration of drones and display of registration number much like regular aircraft. This should be a requirement for any non line of site drones.
I think requiring a regular pilot's license as going overboard. Pilot's licenses are very expensive and would put an excellent hobby out of reach of most people. That would be like requiring a vehicle license to ride a bicycle. Perhaps a drone license which has more emphasis on rules and regulations rather than piloting skill might be sufficient. I think that LOS flying should not require licensing.
From your original post;
keeping the model within his eyesight while holding a fairly conspicuous controller with antennas sticking out of it, and no extra laws are needed to catch and punish him, just a little police shoe-leather.
The drone was at least 2300 feet from the controller and therefore not as easily found as you may think. The controller could have been miles away.
There is a huge difference between a bird which stops and engine and a drone with a lithium battery which can explode in the engine causing much more damage. That damage could break turbine fins which could take out fuel lines and puncture fuel tanks which could cause a major explosion or fire and take off the wing. In the case of the bird, no engine. In the case of the drone, no wing. Most aircraft can land with one engine out. Most aircraft fall out of the sky if they only have one wing. See the difference?
Actually it's not..
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
Did you see anywhere in the article to word "ban"? They are talking about regulations. Many things are regulated and not banned.
You missed one very important point. The aircraft that it almost hit was at 2300 ft above ground level. That is much further than the other end of the park and far out of line of site. The only way to fly that high in control would be with a remote camera. Therefore RC aircraft + beyond LOS + camers = drone.
Sounds to me like this guy was flying a standard old RC airplane and doing so too close to an airport, which is already illegal.
It is actually not illegal. You just need to inform the airport.
when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
The article also states that the aircraft was about 5 miles from the airport so he may have been just outside the 5 mile reporting requirement.
This video was taken at 8000 feet. That is far beyond line of sight. According to their web site a DragonLink can reach up to 30Kms.
Drone= Non line of site remotely controlled aircraft. Yes it is a drone. What would you define it as?
So new laws against drone flying aren't going to have any effect on the outcome.
One new law could be a requiremet to register and display aircraft numbers on all non-line of site controlled aircraft. That way the owner can be identified if the aircraft is photographed of found after a collision. They may also be required to carry a small transponder. It is not about banning them but regulating them. Right now the regulations are very weak.
how is this any different than a large bird being pulled into the engine of an aircraft?
Birds generally don't carry lithium ion batteries that can act like a small bomb going off inside the engine. Also the body of the bird is generally softer than the metal that is used in the engines of drones.
The difference now being that with the advent of cheap cameras and video controllers these aircraft can be much further away from the operator than ever before.
The only thing in the article about what type of RC aircraft is as follows;
The pilot reported seeing a small, remote-control aircraft very close to his plane
It was at 2,300 feet and about five miles from the airport when it encountered the remote controlled jet.
How do you get F4 Phantom from that? There are many remote controlled jets out there that are not F4 Phantoms.
not a copter type "drone" that we think of now.
That may be your definition but many people, including me, define drone as any aircraft controlled outside of line of sight. The line of site being the dividing line between RC aircraft and drone.
Not according to this chart
Wait till the uber drivers get tired of being up late and the wait time goes to 4 hours.
Also of course, just as cabs sometimes do the Uber driver can refuse service if they are at all concerned about someone being so drunk they cannot be transported.
That is interesting because taxi drivers are not allowed to discriminate that way. the idea of "I don't like you I won't pick you up" does not fly in the taxi industry.
The main point is still valid. It is a fad right now as it is fun and interesting. The turn over rate in Uber is going to run through most of the available driver pretty quickly. This will happen after the professional taxis are driven out of business and we will be left with very few rides left and it will take a while for the professional business to re-build.
Except that many cabs are dispatched and use meters that report back to the dispatch. Generally when a meter is turned on it reports to the dispatch the the car is in use and not to send calls to it. You also forget about the cameras that are in most cabs.
I am not talking about the same person doing it over and over. I am talking about different people doing the same thing.
The main reason for limited numbers of licenses is so that driver can make a living wage. I drove cab for 8 years and I could tell when too many cars were on the road. Our company rarely had all our cars on the road at the same time. There are a few problems that Uber causes to this model.
1. Gravy drivers. There will be drivers who only work the good times and do their regular jobs the rest of the time. This causes too many drivers to be available in good times and too few drivers available during off time.
2. Part time drivers. Someone who goes out a couple of hours a few times a week is not trying to make a living. They are doing it for "extra money". They don't care if they make less than a living wage because it is just mad money anyway. That have another job to pay the bills.
3. Fad. Sure there are quite a few Uber drivers right now. It is new and interesting. Wait till some drivers have to deal with obnoxious drinks puking in their car a few times. The fad will wear off and many Uber drivers will quit.
Wait till the cab companies can no longer find drivers for their cars because drivers can no longer make a living wage. Watch for cabs becoming almost unavailable during low times. People will sing a different tune when it takes a couple of hours to get a cab at 2AM.
Assuming you already have a breadboard and a few simple items, you can start using these CPUs with very little effort. Even if you have to buy everything, you could spend as little as $20 — perhaps $40 if you buy the Link board for debugging.
An arduino has many more connectors and is easier to use and therefore justifies a higher cost.
The cost estimates are done before anything happens. The reason for the 30% is sometimes developments have problems and cost more than expected. The banks demand that 30% as a contingency against problems. These kinds of problems happen more often than you think. Rarely does a developer actually make the 30%.
It's worth more because it peaks around peak consumption times when electricity is most expensive.
Yes but it never comes up to the retail price for electricity. Also the distribution companies know that so they average out the price during the day. Energy companies buy at a variable rate. Do you think consumers should too?
Anyway, the electricity grid is public infrastructure.
So what? No matter who owns it it still needs to be maintained and upgraded as more people use it. If you buy at the same price as you sell there is no money for that.
Considering the razor thin margins on development these days there is no room for extras like extra parking.
HIV virons present in blood are not, and infection may occur.
HIV survives for very short times outside the human body even in blood. Here is a quote from the CDC;
Except for rare cases in which children consumed food that was pre-chewed by an HIV-infected caregiver, HIV has not been spread through food. The virus does not live long outside the body. You cannot get it from consuming food handled by an HIV-infected person; even if the food contained small amounts of HIV-infected blood or semen, exposure to the air, heat from cooking, and stomach acid would destroy the virus.
This is an identical risk to Uber and to Slugging. Taxis control this risk with background checks and traceability;
You just contradicted yourself. Risks with less controls are higher risk. As for tractability, all Uber has is a cell phone number which could be a burner phone.
Consumers control this risk via lawsuit
which is useless agains a driver with no money and no insurance.
uninsured driver insurance, if they have auto insurance.
Which may not cover being a passenger in an uninsured vehicle and may not pay much at all.
You miss the whole point
Most people can not tell the difference between a taxi and Uber and think they are taking the same risk when they are not.
Such an informed comment. You forget the construction workers who can't find jobs, the materials suppliers who can sell products, the businesses who can't find affordable office space, the people who can't find affordable homes, the land owners who can't sell their buildings. If new developments are not happening due to onerous requirements then all of these issues can occur.
I know it's a crappy deal because the electricity you sell back is somehow worth much less than the electricity you use,
It is worth less because someone has to pay for the infrastructure to transmit that electricity around and the backup capacity that would kick in on cloudy days. When you buy electricity you are not just purchasing electron but the all the infrastructure to support making sure you always get what you want. Energy produces sell at a wholesale price which is much lower than the retail price. People who sell to the grid at a lower price than they buy from are just being treated like any other electricity producer.
But there is a middle ground where the public good can be served along with them making a profit.
The problem is that most developments are already within a few percentage points of not being financed. Developers try to sell for as low as they can and still meet the bank's requirements for profit. They are competing with existing property. If the price of new property is too high it will not sell and the developer may never get financing again.