FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night(reuters.com)
reuters.com
FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones-faa/u-s-to-allow-small-drones-to-fly-over-people-at-night-idUSKBN2921R8
282 コメント
I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features.
I would pay extra for a drone with such safeguards. just the prospect of less chances of ruining it would be enough.
Similarly, eskates often have a regenerative battery charging while braking which is a great idea. but it also cannot handle charging while already full. So if you go down a slope while the board is full, it can decide to shut down and let you bomb down that hill. Which sounds like an insane pitfall.
Or what happens if the board loses its connection to the remote ? I would hope that it brakes progressively but similarly it just does nothing .. so up to you to find a way to stop.
It is such a weird blind spot to have. I don't think a car manufacturer would ship a product with this kind of blind spot, is that a culture thing ? regulation ?
Anyway, fingers crossed that somebody seizes these opportunities.
I would pay extra for a drone with such safeguards. just the prospect of less chances of ruining it would be enough.
Similarly, eskates often have a regenerative battery charging while braking which is a great idea. but it also cannot handle charging while already full. So if you go down a slope while the board is full, it can decide to shut down and let you bomb down that hill. Which sounds like an insane pitfall.
Or what happens if the board loses its connection to the remote ? I would hope that it brakes progressively but similarly it just does nothing .. so up to you to find a way to stop.
It is such a weird blind spot to have. I don't think a car manufacturer would ship a product with this kind of blind spot, is that a culture thing ? regulation ?
Anyway, fingers crossed that somebody seizes these opportunities.
>I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features.
I’m not... no safety is what the free market will deliver in the absence of regulations or liability or both.
I’m not... no safety is what the free market will deliver in the absence of regulations or liability or both.
then why were seatbelts and safety glass delivered by the free market? why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will? Why do they push updates that improve braking to customers that have already paid? Why does volvo specifically advertise their safety as a differentiator?
Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to others, the free market wouldn't reward it?
Your claim simply doesn't match reality.
Do you really think if a company could prove it provides double the survivability of accidents compared to others, the free market wouldn't reward it?
Your claim simply doesn't match reality.
You're actually proving yourself wrong here.
Regulation and regulation alone provided us with seatbelts and safety glass. Car companies even ran a massive lobbying and advertising campaign to convince America seatbelts weren't necessary with slogans calling drivers in car accidents "the nut behind the wheel" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/nut-behind-wheel/
Regulation and regulation alone provided us with seatbelts and safety glass. Car companies even ran a massive lobbying and advertising campaign to convince America seatbelts weren't necessary with slogans calling drivers in car accidents "the nut behind the wheel" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/nut-behind-wheel/
No, Volvo gave us seatbelts and the Tucker gave us safety glass. 9 years after the free market created seatbelts, the government mandated it. Mandates have never and will never manifest technological/scientific advancements out of nowhere.
> Mandates have never and will never manifest technological/scientific advancements out of nowhere.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that. I think the point is that the free market doesn't deliver these kind of safety features w/o the "incentive" of government mandates. Whether that is b/c the market doesn't demand those safety features in the absence of a mandate is another issue.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that. I think the point is that the free market doesn't deliver these kind of safety features w/o the "incentive" of government mandates. Whether that is b/c the market doesn't demand those safety features in the absence of a mandate is another issue.
The free market didn't deliver seat belts. Regulation had to step in and Ralph Nader lobbied the US govt to get it passed.
Volvo sold the three point seatbelt for nine years before the US government required it.
Most automakers had them, they were just optional and so people didn't spend extra money on them and kept getting flung out of their cars.
Volvo had them standard, but Volvo has also never been above 1% market share in the US [1]. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
[1] https://knoema.com/infographics/floslle/top-vehicle-manufact...
Volvo had them standard, but Volvo has also never been above 1% market share in the US [1]. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
[1] https://knoema.com/infographics/floslle/top-vehicle-manufact...
Volvo is European too.
The part we should be worried about is that it took 9 years for the govt to require it. 50 years from now, we'll be talking about how stupid it was that drones didn't have safety features.
The part we should be worried about is that it took 9 years for the govt to require it. 50 years from now, we'll be talking about how stupid it was that drones didn't have safety features.
That’s a little different, seatbelts save the lives of your customers
> why are tesla's significantly safer than other manufacturers of their own free will?
Safer than who? Model T fords? How many Tesla's are on the road anyway? In which countries? What about Ferrari? Mercedes?
Safer than who? Model T fords? How many Tesla's are on the road anyway? In which countries? What about Ferrari? Mercedes?
Teslas turn off regenerative breaking if you charge too far, but the car tells you that pretty prominently: however, the car handles very differently without Regen brakes.
This was the dumbest thing I experienced with my Model 3. I was expecting my regen brakes to work after I pulled out and I had to brake super hard after.
Why can’t Tesla just give us an option to keep it consistent? I guess adding video games is more important.
Why can’t Tesla just give us an option to keep it consistent? I guess adding video games is more important.
Tesla has been religious about never blending regen and mechanical braking. The accelerator only controls the motors, the brake pedal only controls the brakes. They’ve broken that somewhat now with one-pedal driving mode. The only way they could make regen feel consistent with a cold or full battery would be to blend in friction braking to make up the difference, which is just not something Tesla is into doing.
My BMW i3 did this really well, FWIW.
My BMW i3 did this really well, FWIW.
I mean, the solution is not to charge past 90%: for most practical purposes there’s no reason to go past 90% anyways.
Because that's not how batteries work.
Regen works because the batteries are being charged by the induction of the motors taking energy from the moving car. If the batteries are full they cannot take any more change and hence cannot draw power from the motion of the car.
What do you expect them to do? Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?
Regen works because the batteries are being charged by the induction of the motors taking energy from the moving car. If the batteries are full they cannot take any more change and hence cannot draw power from the motion of the car.
What do you expect them to do? Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?
> Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?
That's called an induction brake and it's already widely used in trains and semi trucks. That said, you still need a friction brake at low speeds, since the induction braking force is proportional to velocity.
That's called an induction brake and it's already widely used in trains and semi trucks. That said, you still need a friction brake at low speeds, since the induction braking force is proportional to velocity.
Simulate the same braking curve with the physical brakes as when regen is functioning?
I suppose that's one approach. Mechanical brakes work by converting the kinetic energy of the vehicle into heat via friction, it seems fitting that inductive brakes would dump energy to heat by running current over a resistor. Though under normal braking circumstances I don't know what percentage of the vehicle's energy is lost to the brakes themselves and what percentage is lost to the friction of the tire with the road.
Can anyone do the math and tell me how big that resistor would need to be? I’ve always wondered how many watts are being dissipated by my brake pads and rotors when I stop.
Assuming your Tesla is around 2000 kg and traveling at 30 meters/s, it's got about 900,000 J of kinetic energy. Stopping in 10s is some serious power that you'd need to throw off.
All of yhe 90 kW doesn't need to be radiated in real time though as it's ok for the brake elements to heat up.
> What do you expect them to do? Dump the current on a giant resistor and hope it doesn't melt?
You know...they could use it to boil water for a built in coffee/green tea maker.
Just a thought...
You know...they could use it to boil water for a built in coffee/green tea maker.
Just a thought...
Can’t you also set the car to never charge to actual max, giving regen breaking some leeway? (If this is somehow a problem you run into often)
Yes, and that is the default. But people do charge to 100% occasionally for road trips (or for escaping a hurricane path, etc).
Annoyingly, newer Leafs don't let you limit how much you charge anymore, and the regenerative braking curve changes based on how much battery you have…
I guess that's easier and cheaper than adding a circuit to keep regenerative braking on, but dump the energy into a big resistor...
Aka rheostatic braking. Trains do this, but they have pretty large radiators for it.
that would be an unnecessarily complicated way of reimplementing friction brakes.
Most of the hardware is already there for the regenerative brakes, and it allows the driver's muscle memory with respect to braking pressure to still apply in that edge case. I'd be surprised if it were simpler to make the friction brake fallback behave identically to the regenerative system when the battery is full.
Maybe it's not worth the cost/complexity anyway, but the idea has merit somewhere in the design space.
Maybe it's not worth the cost/complexity anyway, but the idea has merit somewhere in the design space.
If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.
Rheostatic and friction brakes both basically convert kinetic energy into heat. Is there some fundamental reason why a resistor would be harder to cool appropriately (low thermal conductivity comes to mind, though I'm pretty sure there are high performance ceramics used for both brakes and resistors -- my heuristics aren't really good enough to make a good guess for this one)?
Well, friction brakes are cooled by the airflow in the wheel wells. Perhaps you could aircool the resistors in the same place. The friction brakes would probably still be there though; would there be space for both?
Shouldn't the resistor having to end up dissipating exactly as much heat as the friction brakes do, by conservation of energy? Is there a reason that it's inherently mechanically harder for the resistor to dissipate that heat?
not really, but you have to have the friction brakes anyway, so why add more parts?
Disks and pads wear out. I haven't done the math, but I assume you could put in a big (wine bottle sized?) power resistor that can take the thermal cycling more or less indefinitely.
You'd have to cool it, as other commenters have pointed out (you're putting a car's worth of kinetic energy into the thing, after all). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just possible.
You'd have to cool it, as other commenters have pointed out (you're putting a car's worth of kinetic energy into the thing, after all). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just possible.
and then you need extra engineering and production costs to cool those resistors :)
I worked with a DJI matrice for some research projects so it is a larger one than most consumers but man those things are crazy dangerous. The propellors can cut off your fingers or cause serious damage if it hits someone. Not to mention a piece of metal falling out of the sky onto someone. I agree heavily they need more safety mechanisms
> I am always stunned that many (most/all) of these high tech gadgets lack a LOT of safety features.
Exactly. I would also expect a drone to have triple redundundancy of all sensors but they seem to have only one copy of each.
Exactly. I would also expect a drone to have triple redundundancy of all sensors but they seem to have only one copy of each.
As long as they are carrying less people than 737-MAX, I think they will be fine with less redundancy.
They should be safe, so they don't fall on people etc, but that is a separate issue.
They should be safe, so they don't fall on people etc, but that is a separate issue.
All it takes is for a single IMU failure to fall on people. Two IMUs doesn't help because you don't know which one is right. With three you can vote out the 1/3 failing IMU and issue a warning to land immediately.
Same for GPS and everything else.
Same for GPS and everything else.
Yet even MAX didn't have triple redundancy of all sensors, and I don't think it is customary to have triple redundancy for all sensors in pretty much any plane.
Some things are more or less important, and even insignificant for safe landing. Triple redundant sensors won't save you from programming errors, birds or cables in rotors, batteries bursting into flames which is still more likely to cause a crash than your only camera or microphone failing - probably even a GPS failure, as long as you have a working IMU.
Some things are more or less important, and even insignificant for safe landing. Triple redundant sensors won't save you from programming errors, birds or cables in rotors, batteries bursting into flames which is still more likely to cause a crash than your only camera or microphone failing - probably even a GPS failure, as long as you have a working IMU.
[deleted]
Geese is shunting a resistor across the motor so hard?
oh if you can that would be really cool to see how you did that... I'd love to retrofit something like this to my drone... I did buy my kids a drone and the issue there was they flew it into a very tall tree... needless say it's still in the very tall tree
What you need is a second drone..
...with a claw on an extendable rope attached. Because a rescue operation is obviously more interesting than just giving the kids a second drone.
What you need is a third drone...
Now you have three or more problems.
Reminds me of when Boyd Coddington went to Bonneville Salt Flats one year. Got his RV stuck, then got a tow truck stuck, then a 2nd and 3rd tow truck got stuck trying to recover them. Might have even taken a 4th tow truck to get them all out...
http://www.saltflats.com/stuck.htm
http://www.saltflats.com/stuck.htm
You can tell it's a road racing crowd and not an off road crowd based on the fact that the entire ground around the stuck vehicles isn't carpeted in tire tracks from other vehicles trying to get it unstuck and empty beer cans.
Have you tested deploying the parachute?
I've never flown a drone, but this sounds like a pretty cool idea! Are you aware of anything like this being a requirement anywhere, or having being proposed by regulators anywhere?
They kind of fall in with the rules published by the FAA here, and previously were more or less a requirement to get a waiver before said rules. The whole worry about flight over people is two-fold:
1. Props still spinning waiting to cut people up in event of flyaways or loss of power from one or more props
2. In the event of total loss of power, what is the total kinetic energy that would be imparted on an individual should the falling drone strike them
Parachute systems effectively deal with both. A proper setup will power off the drone, making sure the props aren't spinning, and lower the rate of descent so minimal kinetic energy will be transferred in the event of a collision with a human being.
The new rules firmly codify what requirements must be met to operate over people safely, and parachutes along with prop guards should easily meet them.
1. Props still spinning waiting to cut people up in event of flyaways or loss of power from one or more props
2. In the event of total loss of power, what is the total kinetic energy that would be imparted on an individual should the falling drone strike them
Parachute systems effectively deal with both. A proper setup will power off the drone, making sure the props aren't spinning, and lower the rate of descent so minimal kinetic energy will be transferred in the event of a collision with a human being.
The new rules firmly codify what requirements must be met to operate over people safely, and parachutes along with prop guards should easily meet them.
The interesting part behind the current "noflyzones" database concept is that it requires a lot of synchronization overhead.
My DJI dropped out of 100m in the middle of the flight because GPS took so long to synchronize.
And yes, the firmware does not "safely autoland" like any reasonable person would expect. Instead it just shuts off the power and drops down.
My DJI dropped out of 100m in the middle of the flight because GPS took so long to synchronize.
And yes, the firmware does not "safely autoland" like any reasonable person would expect. Instead it just shuts off the power and drops down.
> I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly internet requirement).
How is this any different than an aircraft transponder or IFF device?
How is this any different than an aircraft transponder or IFF device?
How do you keep the propellers from cutting people up? Does the parachute also tangle up the prop?
Most (if not all?), like the SafeAir line from ParaZero [0] physically power off the drone before deployment to eliminate both factors as risks. This also allows them to handle flyaway situations effectively, making them useful even when you're not flying over a crowd.
Really the biggest problem is they aren't cheap, costing more than the drone themselves.
0: https://parazero.com/products/safeair-for-dji-mavic/
Really the biggest problem is they aren't cheap, costing more than the drone themselves.
0: https://parazero.com/products/safeair-for-dji-mavic/
You can get propeller guards like so[1] to avoid them damaging something (or the blades themselves being damaged).
[1] https://m.dji.com/product/mini-2-360-propeller-guard
[1] https://m.dji.com/product/mini-2-360-propeller-guard
They aren’t sharp. Doesn’t seem like a realistic concern tbh.
I used to work for a drone company. I made sure to go watch the mechanical testing for prop safety. One of the test objects was a chicken leg, and the prop cut through more than 2mm of bone. The props can do some serious damage!
I don't know what, if any, approaches are implemented but one solution is that you can design a safety feature in the motor control to turn off the motor if it detects blockage.
I don't know what, if any, approaches are implemented but one solution is that you can design a safety feature in the motor control to turn off the motor if it detects blockage.
Having driven someone to the ER from a drone accident, just because they're not "sharp" doesn't mean they won't cut straight through your arms, hands, or wrist if you touch them while they're landing. When the blades are going at ~10k RPM, it doesn't matter that they're made of plastic or whatever.
Being hit in the eye with a flying object spinning at high speeds...how much would it matter how sharp the blades are?
This comment thread is about someone adding a parachute to their drone if they lose power, so it doesn’t fall on someone.
The propellers would not be spinning, and the object would be gently gliding down.
The propellers would not be spinning, and the object would be gently gliding down.
The start of the thread was about either losing power or losing control.
The GP dismissal of the danger of the propellors sounded suspiciously like the guy on YT who just got fined $182k by the FAA, who argued that the first offense for hitting someone in the head should be a $20 fine.
The GP dismissal of the danger of the propellors sounded suspiciously like the guy on YT who just got fined $182k by the FAA, who argued that the first offense for hitting someone in the head should be a $20 fine.
The drone’s blades would likely still be spinning during a parachute descent... albeit at lower revolutions per minute. I’d imagine drones operate like a helicopter: in the event of an engine failure, the helicopter goes into “autorotation” in which the now unpowered rotor blades move due to the air going through the blades as the helicopter descends, thus braking the fall. However, if drones have locking rotors, then in that case the blades would not be rotating during a parachute descent.
Regardless of whether the blades are locked or spinning at lower RPMs, still better than powered drones falling from the sky!
Regardless of whether the blades are locked or spinning at lower RPMs, still better than powered drones falling from the sky!
this is a reasonable hypothesis, but quadcopters don't work this way. the propellers are usually not large enough to meaningfully slow the descent of the aircraft. also, quads are not stable the way a helicopter with one large rotor is. a drone is likely to tumble when the power is cut.
Fair point. Didn’t mean to imply that the rotors would meaningfully slow descent. Just meant to say that, parachute or not, the rotors could still be moving while unpowered. It’s more of a technicality since the slow rotation of the tiny blades would probably be towards the bottom of the list of safety concerns, parachute or not.
Danger: Engage safety squints.
That's an extremely good idea, I'm surprised that isn't a standard feature. Do you have any STL files/firmware you'd like to share to help other people do it?
Do you have a tutorial for fitting the parachute? Incorrect method of deployment would do more harm than good.
i think parachutes for drones is a great idea and i hope advocates for that to the FAA.
Do you have write up of this retrofit? How is it triggered?
Not OP but you could probably hook the parachute to constantly NOT be deployed, like a deadman's switch, so that if you lose power it just deploys automatically.
So... when you unplug the battery to replace it, you're greeted by a popping parachute?
Yes, it's just part of the process for you to disarm the parachute in that situation. Sort of like it's sensible to disarm the airbag before steering column changes in some cars at least.
[deleted]
How about airbags that are always deployed?
You could even fill them with helium.
You could even fill them with helium.
Self transmitting license plates are a totally reasonable requirement.
In the future where drones are popular, if you get a drone with a high def camera flying over your backyard, you want to be able to identify who is flying it.
In the future where drones are popular, if you get a drone with a high def camera flying over your backyard, you want to be able to identify who is flying it.
The final rule looks to be a big win for everyone who was protesting the original proposed rule:
"The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast."
This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much simpler and cost-effective to integrate into existing hobby or consumer drones. It could be built into RC receivers, or as a separate transponder.
"The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast."
This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much simpler and cost-effective to integrate into existing hobby or consumer drones. It could be built into RC receivers, or as a separate transponder.
It is extremely hypocritical in any form. At the same time that the FAA is asking hobbyists to broadcast identification, they are modifying the rules to allow the rich and famous to change their identifiers at will preventing any sort of public accountability. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/
I’m a little surprised to see a “if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide” stance for private transport.
What is the argument why their vehicles should be trackable?
What is the argument why their vehicles should be trackable?
I bet that's to make it harder to track domestic surveillance planes more than anything to do with wealthy privacy concerns.
It is two fold: private plane owners associations are lobbying. The flight tracking industry (FlightRadar24, FlightAware, etc) are also pushing for it because without an expensive feed of data from the FAA hobbyist networks like ADSBExchange will be unable to compete with them.
RF can still be expensive depending on how it needs to be implemented. As a casual drone pilot I’m still concerned about how this is going to effect cost, existing equipment in the field and hobby/home-built uSAS’s.
I’ll still take it over the internet mandate, however - so it’s a step in the right direction.
I’ll still take it over the internet mandate, however - so it’s a step in the right direction.
No matter what, there will be consequences for DIY/hobby aircraft, just because cost/weight/complexity are critical factors in a small drone. Most of the planes I fly now are wood/cardboard with a few dumb electrical components. Adding any component will make it harder for newcomers to enter the field.
The FAA has decided that unregulated drone flight is an issue, and no matter what, they're going to tackle it. So I'm happy to see any solution that allows for the continued existence of the DIY part of the industry.
In my mind the "ideal" solution for DIY aircraft is a separate RC receiver-sized transmitter, powered over BEC, that you add to your aircraft when you are flying in conditions that require Remote ID. The transmitter would become another fixed cost in the hobby, but you could use it on whatever aircraft you're flying -- It would be linked to a pilot, instead of a particular aircraft. I have zero knowledge of RF physics and engineering, but I'd be happy if that was possible without a heavy transmitter and significant power consumption.
The FAA has decided that unregulated drone flight is an issue, and no matter what, they're going to tackle it. So I'm happy to see any solution that allows for the continued existence of the DIY part of the industry.
In my mind the "ideal" solution for DIY aircraft is a separate RC receiver-sized transmitter, powered over BEC, that you add to your aircraft when you are flying in conditions that require Remote ID. The transmitter would become another fixed cost in the hobby, but you could use it on whatever aircraft you're flying -- It would be linked to a pilot, instead of a particular aircraft. I have zero knowledge of RF physics and engineering, but I'd be happy if that was possible without a heavy transmitter and significant power consumption.
I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window.
Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.
Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.
I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window.
A couple of years ago, a guy up the street got a "drone" for Christmas, and spent the next couple of weeks flying into the backyards of everyone on the block, presumably to look in the windows or see what else he could get away with. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea, especially since the thing was noisy as hell.
It stopped suddenly. I don't know if someone called the police, or hit it with a tennis racket, or what. But by Saint Valentine's Day he was back to racing his remote controlled cars up and down the block, instead.
A couple of years ago, a guy up the street got a "drone" for Christmas, and spent the next couple of weeks flying into the backyards of everyone on the block, presumably to look in the windows or see what else he could get away with. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea, especially since the thing was noisy as hell.
It stopped suddenly. I don't know if someone called the police, or hit it with a tennis racket, or what. But by Saint Valentine's Day he was back to racing his remote controlled cars up and down the block, instead.
I’ll never understand people who use drones like this, even ignoring the obvious moral and ethical issues of voyeurism they’re loud and obnoxious at the altitudes you would need to go peeping through windows.
Every time I try and assuage fears laypeople have about drones and privacy there’s a story or anecdote about some dumbass who does stuff like this anyway...
Every time I try and assuage fears laypeople have about drones and privacy there’s a story or anecdote about some dumbass who does stuff like this anyway...
If you really want to spy on somebody, you don’t use a noisy buzzing drone right outside a window, or hovering in an otherwise empty sky. Even something as crude as a smartphone on a stick could be more covert.
Surprised that even tech enthusiasts are often so fearful of drones while not worried about the hundreds of cameras already filming their activities in most public places.
Surprised that even tech enthusiasts are often so fearful of drones while not worried about the hundreds of cameras already filming their activities in most public places.
Even further than this, the type of camera found on most drones is quite terrible for detailed surveillance work. Even if it does have a "high definition" camera recording to local storage these are Gopro style lenses with massive FOV, fisheye distortion and calibrated to handle a very wide range of light exposure up to and including direct sun. Shooting meaningful video through a window is a joke at best. As you've identified the noise generated at distances close enough to resolve any meaningful detail are even more comical
Large lenses are very heavy and benefit greatly from a stable platform. Tripods and low earth orbit are preferred by spies of consequence.
Large lenses are very heavy and benefit greatly from a stable platform. Tripods and low earth orbit are preferred by spies of consequence.
So all those government types using technologies like "gorgon stare" from aircraft and other aerial platforms aren't consequential?
Gorgon Stare is, to my understanding, using much larger fixed wing aircraft capable of carrying and stabilizing the added weight of a telephoto lens. Glass and mirrors are the key for imaging; multirotor UAVs have very limited payload lifting capabilities and even if they can produce the required thrust, an offset center of gravity caused by large lenses or mirrors slung below the rotors can have profound effects on their agility, speed, and flight time. Gorgon Stare as a program appears to be calibrated towards ID and tracking of vehicle sized targets across an urban landscape; this discussion is about the unrealistic perception that 250g-1kg quadcopters are somehow desirable for perverts. Neither consumer multi-rotors nor military reaper/predators are particularly stealthy surveillance options since anybody close enough to spy on is going to be well aware of the aircrafts presence. 10 foot mirrors in low earth orbit tend to be the tool of choice for serious spies.
It's not about the public spaces, it's about private spaces.
In the scenario I wrote about above, every house in the neighborhood has a seven-foot-tall cinderblock wall around it. The guy was flying over these walls to look in the people's first-floor windows from their backyards. A cell phone on a stick isn't a problem in that scenario.
In the scenario I wrote about above, every house in the neighborhood has a seven-foot-tall cinderblock wall around it. The guy was flying over these walls to look in the people's first-floor windows from their backyards. A cell phone on a stick isn't a problem in that scenario.
Selfie sticks on subway trains present a far bigger privacy risk than fish-eye lensed sport-cams strapped to a flying lawnmower.
> Surprised that even tech enthusiasts are often so fearful of drones while not worried about the hundreds of cameras already filming their activities in most public places.
The cameras are also in neighborhoods, and if you have neighbors, you probably have several cameras pointing at your property, too.
Ring cameras are everywhere, and since they upload to the cloud, their recordings are one request to Amazon away from being in the government's hands.
The cameras are also in neighborhoods, and if you have neighbors, you probably have several cameras pointing at your property, too.
Ring cameras are everywhere, and since they upload to the cloud, their recordings are one request to Amazon away from being in the government's hands.
What you can film from your doorbell camera location is of much less concern to me than what you can film hovering outside my window.
You may be dismayed by the fact that hovering outside someone’s window, at least in Canada, is not a crime unless the individual was naked or engaging in sexual activity. The drones laws were left vague for now and have not caught up to the technology. Here are the rules for Canada: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/flying-your-dr...
I did not know that about Canada's laws, it's definitely disconcerting. Also, how does that work with the 30m distance from bystanders rule, doesn't count because they're not outside?
That is basically the argument because you could be checking out an abandoned house looking into the windows. But if someone stepped outside you would now be aware the flight situation has changed and now being within 30m of someone you need to leave the area. I can tell you this, any good lawyer would currently squash a case of a drone in a window without much fight with the current laws but it is obvious with the language of the RCMP and how they are viewing it those days may be limited because they are trying to define new definitions of what breaks ones expectation of privacy. I don't have any drones but I honestly don't think it would be worth your time flying outside someone's window to test this as you are likely to get arrested and even if you beat the charge you would likely spend thousands fighting it.
The need for regulation and education around proper usage of consumer drones is definitely clear, as shown by your (and many other people's) experience! Most enthusiasts would agree that a solution is needed. Most drone incidents have been untrained or reckless operators piloting a DJI drone somewhere they shouldn't.
Most of the concern with proposed Remote ID regulations was because 1) The regulation didn't actually solve the issue of untrained drone operators and 2) Added a high barrier to entry that would stifle the large hobby/enthusiast/startup industry while giving large companies like Amazon free reign over the airspace.
Most of the concern with proposed Remote ID regulations was because 1) The regulation didn't actually solve the issue of untrained drone operators and 2) Added a high barrier to entry that would stifle the large hobby/enthusiast/startup industry while giving large companies like Amazon free reign over the airspace.
People do not need educating not to spy on teenage girls with drones, they do not need training to not do it.
But that's not why the FAA is regulating it, and these regulations won't stop that. They're regulating because people are flying recklessly above 400ft, above roadways, and in restricted airspace.
On an intellectual level not distracting and crashing a Boeing is more important.
On a dad level, well. Protective emotions can be intense.
On a dad level, well. Protective emotions can be intense.
Or towing an ad-banner over the freeway.
Flying above 400 feet is only a problem because aircraft can fly down at 500 feet. Do we really want aircraft at only 500 feet? I wouldn't want even a typical general aviation aircraft going over my house at that height. Make it an Airbus 380 and it might be entertaining.
The solution is to raise the height for normal aircraft. That makes room for drones. We could give the drones from 500 to 1900 feet, putting normal aircraft at 2000 feet and above.
The solution is to raise the height for normal aircraft. That makes room for drones. We could give the drones from 500 to 1900 feet, putting normal aircraft at 2000 feet and above.
There already are restrictions about how low and where you can fly a 'real' airplane. There is even a regulation that would keep an airplane from flying over your house at 500 ft. under most circumstances. The reality is that most pilots don't want to be 500ft above terrain unless they are VERY close to the runway
There are also plenty of good reasons to be under 2,000 ft. The most general is that all training and approach for VFR ops at airports is done at 1,000 ft. by default.
Airspace and altitudes are pretty complex, for a more involved example: A VFR flight departing North from Boeing field in Seattle HAS to stay below 1800 ft but above the highest parts of the city at ~750 ft. Because the air-space above 1800 belongs to jets on instrument approach to Sea-tac. In other words, to get out of that airfield you have to fly underneath the 747s. Seattle is just one example, there's weird airspace like this that balances the needs of different users just about everywhere.
There are also plenty of good reasons to be under 2,000 ft. The most general is that all training and approach for VFR ops at airports is done at 1,000 ft. by default.
Airspace and altitudes are pretty complex, for a more involved example: A VFR flight departing North from Boeing field in Seattle HAS to stay below 1800 ft but above the highest parts of the city at ~750 ft. Because the air-space above 1800 belongs to jets on instrument approach to Sea-tac. In other words, to get out of that airfield you have to fly underneath the 747s. Seattle is just one example, there's weird airspace like this that balances the needs of different users just about everywhere.
For what it's worth, in any urban area, the 1000 feet above highest object within 2000 feet horizontally is much more likely to apply. While the actual regulations are somewhat loose on definitions, most pilots I know would describe the "500 feet from anything" fallback regulation as being applicable only when there are no structures or other populated places nearby.
In any case, raising floor altitude for non-RC/unmanned aircraft to 2k feet would pose fairly substantial challenges as, even ignoring the fact that airports require approaches below 2k feet and are often near populated areas, lots of commercial applications for light aircraft require low altitudes. Survey, photography, news gathering, law enforcement, sightseeing, etc. These are many of the same applications drones are posed for... there doesn't really seem to be any way to simply separate these types of traffic entirely.
In any case, raising floor altitude for non-RC/unmanned aircraft to 2k feet would pose fairly substantial challenges as, even ignoring the fact that airports require approaches below 2k feet and are often near populated areas, lots of commercial applications for light aircraft require low altitudes. Survey, photography, news gathering, law enforcement, sightseeing, etc. These are many of the same applications drones are posed for... there doesn't really seem to be any way to simply separate these types of traffic entirely.
Aircraft have to land and takeoff.
Obviously the same (or probably even larger) airport exceptions that current regulations include would still exist if the floor were raised.
This is very likely already illegal, depending on where you live... It violates reasonable expectations of privacy, as well as nuisance laws in many jurisdictions, and can probably be considered trespassing. Not to mention they'd need to be flying the drone within line of sight, and depending on the weight of the drone they may also need a license and spotter.
Step 1 should always be to go talk to your neighbor before escalating further, but in cases like this it seems like it would be easy enough to have the police pay them a visit too.
Step 1 should always be to go talk to your neighbor before escalating further, but in cases like this it seems like it would be easy enough to have the police pay them a visit too.
Magnetron and a wok for a dish. Kitchen counter measures.
Sure, but then what happens when you give your neighbor's dog RF burns for walking in the vicinity? Unshielded magnetrons aren't exactly safe...
Go on....
Be careful there tough guy, drones receive the same protections as aircraft. A threat against one is punishable under 18 U.S. Code § 32.
"Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat [against an aircraft] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
"Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat [against an aircraft] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Oh wow! Well I'd still do it to the one peeping in the daughter's bedroom, unless I could get its ID and track down the pervert first.
I hereby threaten to shoot any drones in my backyard with a garden hose.
Come and get me.
Come and get me.
Heck, one could promise to spray any aircraft above the backyard with the water. It wouldn't harm commercial traffic, even if it could reach.
I haven't followed drone stuff closely in a while. any idea how this affects an older drone like a DJI spark that wasn't designed with these requirements in mind? is it just impossible to fly legally now?
These requirements won't affect a DJI Spark for at least another 2.5 years, by which point hopefully DJI will have a retrofit solution.
I genuinely wonder how much DJI cares about supporting older drones such as the discontinued Spark. Or would they rather sell you the latest drone instead (Mavic Mini or future equivalent)?
[deleted]
After reading the rules, I don't see any technical standards on how the system must be implemented - so it's entirely likely that the work DJI has already done on "Drone to Phone" broadcast identification can be retrofitted onto existing platforms with a firmware update as they had hoped.
Too soon to tell for sure, but as somebody who just upgraded to a Mavic Air 2 this year from a Spark I am hopeful (DJI may not always be a shining example of a consumer friendly enterprise, see the SDK fiascos this year, but they don't want to piss off everybody who has bought a drone in the past few years either).
Too soon to tell for sure, but as somebody who just upgraded to a Mavic Air 2 this year from a Spark I am hopeful (DJI may not always be a shining example of a consumer friendly enterprise, see the SDK fiascos this year, but they don't want to piss off everybody who has bought a drone in the past few years either).
What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone photography / videography?
I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license?
That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.
I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license?
That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.
As a pilot, the dynamics of flying for money are very different than flying for fun or personal reasons. The pressure to make the flight in marginal conditions, or push separation to get the shot, or otherwise just generally fly closer to the limits is real and significant. Adding money (and presumably third parties) totally changes the nature of the operation.
Good point!
Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes more sense.
I still hope they’ll make the rules more permissive at some point, especially as drones are integrating more and more flight automation and collision avoidance technology. Maybe certify certain drones with specific features and restrictions as being suitable for commercial usage without a license? Accidents can still happen, but... accidents can also happen with any kind of commercial activity, even without drones involved at all.
I still hope they’ll make the rules more permissive at some point, especially as drones are integrating more and more flight automation and collision avoidance technology. Maybe certify certain drones with specific features and restrictions as being suitable for commercial usage without a license? Accidents can still happen, but... accidents can also happen with any kind of commercial activity, even without drones involved at all.
My impression is that it's pretty easy to get a Part 107 Remote Pilot license; I think it's essentially just a knowledge test. Even if all you learn getting it is how the airspace system works and how to coordinate your use of it, that's a significant base of knowledge that is essential to flying responsibly in the US. There are serious civil and criminal penalties in the Federal Aviation Regulations for lots of complex rules that really do matter, so it makes sense that they at least just want commercial operators to understand what they are on the hook for.
I asked a flight school instructor about a part 107 license a while back and his response was "you want one? say the word and you'll have it by lunch." The only requirement is passing a written exam which he said was very easy compared to the private pilot exam.
The hardest thing about getting the part 107 license might actually be getting the identification form signed, since it needs to be done by an official. If you take the exam at a flight school they'll probably offer to have a CFI do it for you (for a fee I'm sure), but if you take the exam at a non-flight-specific testing center you might have to make a trip to a FSDO or call a CFI and see if they'll do it. It would help with the accessibility of the 107 license if they got rid of the somewhat arcane proof of identity rules inherited from other pilot's licenses.
The hardest thing about getting the part 107 license might actually be getting the identification form signed, since it needs to be done by an official. If you take the exam at a flight school they'll probably offer to have a CFI do it for you (for a fee I'm sure), but if you take the exam at a non-flight-specific testing center you might have to make a trip to a FSDO or call a CFI and see if they'll do it. It would help with the accessibility of the 107 license if they got rid of the somewhat arcane proof of identity rules inherited from other pilot's licenses.
Hence even pilots need a commercial license to do paid aerial photography.
The thing that bothers me about that is the scenario where pictures are taken for fun, but later what if someone were to offer money for them?
The thing that bothers me about that is the scenario where pictures are taken for fun, but later what if someone were to offer money for them?
In such cases it’s normally intent that matters. A lot of laws are based around intent, which might seem like a huge issue but that’s why terms like ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are used.
If you’re regularly selling photos from your regular drone flights then that’s hard to argue about. But a once off because you happen to take a news worthy photo is another story.
If you’re regularly selling photos from your regular drone flights then that’s hard to argue about. But a once off because you happen to take a news worthy photo is another story.
You can fly for fun while putting the video on your monetized youtube channel = commercial flight.
You may feel it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with other FAA certificates: i.e. you need a commercial pilot certificate to be paid to fly.
What if you keep it demonetized and only youtube is making money off it?
Like NW says, the FAA heavily regulates commercial activity. You can get a private license in as little as 40-ish hours. But you need an absolute minimum of 250 total hours to even qualify for a commercial license (and there are a bunch of hour requirements in subcategories such that if you're not explicitly working toward it, you're unlikely to meet minimums), and there's another written and practical exam.
And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test. Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-thought.
And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test. Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-thought.
You can get a part 107 license in a day. It’s proportionate. If you’re making money from drones, I think a written exam is a reasonable pre-qualification.
drones represent a potential hazard to other aircraft as well as people on the ground, which, like it or not, gives the FAA an interest in regulating their use. I agree it seems arbitrary at first glance, but I think it's better to look at it the other way around: the FAA is essentially cutting hobbyists a break from what they would normally require of a drone operator.
Because you can get drone photos from locations you would not have access to unless you were trespassing
I hope buildings in future can implement some sort of electromagnetic area denial system for drones sort of like a robots.txt that drones have to respect (or active denial) and they can't cross some boundary like a airspace around the building so you can't have drones flying up to your windows in your 30th floor apartment and peering in
I hope buildings in future can implement some sort of electromagnetic area denial system for drones sort of like a robots.txt that drones have to respect (or active denial) and they can't cross some boundary like a airspace around the building so you can't have drones flying up to your windows in your 30th floor apartment and peering in
> That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.
Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior. They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't want to bother Congress about it.
Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior. They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't want to bother Congress about it.
Why not get a license? It’s really easy and will take you half a day.
While I applaud this move, I still feel the FAA is woefully failing at integrating UAS into the airspace. The Beyond Visual Line of Site issue still seems like a blocker to real adoption and with no real path forward yet. It baffles me that the airspace up to 200’ above private property can’t be BVLOS for the owner. This would enable advances in agriculture, construction, security, ranching, utility inspections, and certainly many more areas.
Additionally, the idea that the FEDs can manage all this is insane. Drones are not airlines, where a city 30k’ below a flight path shouldn’t have a say in the flight. If drone flights take off, land, or transits a cities boundaries, that city should be more involved than the FEDs, who should just manage overall safety and compliance. The future of drones and beyond visual line of sight over other people's property will be more akin to cars, the DMV, and public roads, than to aircraft, airlines, and the ATC. It will require a ton of local involvement, which, unfortunately, the major corporate players focused on delivery don’t want.
Additionally, the idea that the FEDs can manage all this is insane. Drones are not airlines, where a city 30k’ below a flight path shouldn’t have a say in the flight. If drone flights take off, land, or transits a cities boundaries, that city should be more involved than the FEDs, who should just manage overall safety and compliance. The future of drones and beyond visual line of sight over other people's property will be more akin to cars, the DMV, and public roads, than to aircraft, airlines, and the ATC. It will require a ton of local involvement, which, unfortunately, the major corporate players focused on delivery don’t want.
This is odd: night would be the time when I would think people don't want to hear "whirrrrrrr...' of drones flying over their houses.
I've never heard a drone even close to as loud as my neighbor's motorcycle but it's legal to drive that any time.
I have a small DJI Mini 2 drone and it's pretty much impossible to hear over the street noise in my neighborhood if it's more than about 50 feet up in the air.
I have a small DJI Mini 2 drone and it's pretty much impossible to hear over the street noise in my neighborhood if it's more than about 50 feet up in the air.
Motorcycles are certainly worse than drones in terms of noise pollution! I've never had a drone audible from 2 streets over with my double glazed windows shut, but I hear motorcycles daily (and nightly).
In North America it's very common for motorcyclist to use aftermarket exhausts that are louder than stock parts, and often against local regulations.
I think a better analogy would be living near an airport like I do. Depending on the day and weather, even my small airport is quite loud and annoying. My neighbor's motorcycle is also louder than the planes, except the occasional military jet, but that noise is far less frequent than the planes. I think drone delivery will mean everyone in cities and suburbs will feel like they live near a small airport on a clear day. I too am not looking forward to the flying drone future. I think we should be working on reducing noise as much as possible, not create more in the name of slightly more convenient consumerism.
Yeah, even if all of the logistical and technical issues of drone delivery make it economically viable for Amazon (or whoever) - I think I might boycott Amazon as a company if they started using drones for any deliveries. They are just so obnoxiously loud I would probably welcome people shooting them out of the sky (or if you're awesome you can use an eagle).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816
Plenty of companies hard at work on making anti-drone tech consumer friendly. Rejoice!
Which will quickly be made illegal if it interferes with major commercial activity
I'm not sure what "anti-drone tech" could mean other than RF jamming, which is already very illegal.
High velocity low mass shot pellets propelled in the drone’s general direction via pyrotechnics or similar?
Birdshot?
I’d pay good money for a shotgun-like device that had power enough to take down the drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face videotaping me as I walk down the beach, but not powerful enough to be dangerous to use in such contexts.
hard to see how this could be legal. you don't get to destroy other people's stuff just because they are annoying you with it. even if what they are doing is not quite legal, you would probably end up on the wrong side of the law yourself.
If the "foreigners" are visitors to USA, they would face real difficulty getting the law interested in this sort of case. Perhaps other nations are more welcoming to obnoxious tech dudes?
> you don't get to destroy other people's stuff just because they are annoying you with it.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/news/a17969/m...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/news/a17969/m...
right, but that was on the dude's property, not a public beach. also it was in kentucky.
Even on a public beach, it could be harassment. IANAL, but it might even qualify as assault.
Obviously not a shotgun - but if you're serious about wanting to safely disable drones you can buy net guns that actually work.
https://netgun.com/
https://netgun.com/
> drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face videotaping me
Please explain. I'm genuinely curious.
Please explain. I'm genuinely curious.
I was doing yoga in a sports bra and short shorts on my back deck that faces a canyon and had a drone with lights and cameras fly down to my house directly above the deck railing within a few meters of me. It was completely obnoxious and completely startled me. I thought it was a neighbor playing with an RC car out in the street at first until I saw the lights in the sky.
When you spoke to the manager what did he say?
Not the OP, but I've seen this happen in certain state and national parks.
I started chucking rocks at a "drone" flown by a tourist that got in my face at a state park in Arizona once. The "pilot" started shouting at me in German. He was very surprised to learn that my childhood taught me how to shout back at people in German.
I started chucking rocks at a "drone" flown by a tourist that got in my face at a state park in Arizona once. The "pilot" started shouting at me in German. He was very surprised to learn that my childhood taught me how to shout back at people in German.
Not sure what there is to explain. I regularly walk my dog along a ~1 mile stretch of secluded but public beach, and a handful of times groups of foreigners have had their drones follow me obnoxiously closely for prolonged periods, I assume recording me. The camera stays pointed at me, though I very clearly shoo it away with my hands, avert my gaze, and block my face with my hair.
A strong laser with automated tracker might be enough to melt something on it
Noise pollution can be regulated separately.
It should be part of the rule allowing them to fly at night. It's clearly related, why delay?
> It's clearly related, why delay?
Different regulations are handled by different authorities. Noise is often regulated at a local level.
For example, someone living close to the Niagara Falls may not be bothered by the same drone noise that someone in a remote area without much ambient noise might be.
Different regulations are handled by different authorities. Noise is often regulated at a local level.
For example, someone living close to the Niagara Falls may not be bothered by the same drone noise that someone in a remote area without much ambient noise might be.
I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow.
My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows.
Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?
My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping in through the windows.
Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?
Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on their personal property.
This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
This announcement isn’t at all related your concerns, and changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
Almost all state and local drone laws are invalid in the United States. Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation and there is specific preemption in the federal code. The FAA's stance is that voyeurism is a crime, and the use of a drone is irrelevant.
[deleted]
The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored) prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of drone crashes.
There are existing laws that make that illegal/an invasion of privacy. There's no need to make a law about drones doing it, especially since it would be mostly unenforceable.
Everyone on HN is cheering the relaxation of these rules but I'm angry because of concerns similar to yours. I'm now of the mind of "if you can't fight them join them", I want regulation-free counter-attack drones that destroy any drones that approach my property. But I'm really afraid that this robot vs robot future that we keep rushing towards is not one that we should be creating.
Laws and regulations revolve. When bad things happen, regulations will change. When bad things don’t happen and there is public utility in allowing more things, regulations will eventually change.
This will revolutionize the delivery industry. I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city.
I have a lot of doubts on the cost/efficiency of this. Keeping things airborne will always cost a lot more energy than rolling things around. Ground-based delivery robots make some sense, air-based ones likely don't.
It's likely that the energy cost of drone delivery is a small fraction of the cost a human delivery driver incurs walking to a stoop, particularly if one considers the not insignificant injury risk.
flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery truck or base station could concurrently service multiple blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sure if weight, range, carrying capacity, or speed would work out in a compelling form factor.
flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery truck or base station could concurrently service multiple blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sure if weight, range, carrying capacity, or speed would work out in a compelling form factor.
You're naive if you think a company is going to take on increases costs via drone-based deliveries to marginally decrease delivery driver injury risk.
Even if you’re a “independent contractor” for Uber, if you get injured while working, their health insurance will kick in as a last resort.
I had the crazy thought that drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure (like a skyscraper or antenna), take advantage of the height differential to efficiently glide toward their delivery destination, and then make their return with less weight to carry. Probably very few locales where this could make sense compared to automated sidewalk deliveries like Starship. The speed of the delivery could be astoundingly fast though.
This is not totally crazy. A problem would be you then need a lift to carry everything to the top floor and an expensive structure to support it. You also have local wind and weather conditions to deal with at altitude.
Alternatively, you could use a ground-based slingshot to vertically propel gliders, an approach that is already used in the military and for some long distance UAV testing. However, the wing-based UAV vs. rotor-based UAV physics are very different. Landing an elevated glider with a clear path to its target is one thing, maneuvering between trees and power lines in a complex environment without rotors is quite another.
Then you need to look at a 'convertible' UAV with both features... undoubtedly this raises the cost, reduces the carrying capacity, and is already being pursued.
Finally, you could zoom out and re-evaluate the business case. Why not use a network of local dispatch points (handover points to ground-based UAVs or vans) to reduce the distance to the consumer and with the smaller geographic scope negotiate private airspace access on locally agreeable terms. I believe this is the future for general consumption (food, regular deliveries within small package weight/dimension limits).
Alternatively, you could use a ground-based slingshot to vertically propel gliders, an approach that is already used in the military and for some long distance UAV testing. However, the wing-based UAV vs. rotor-based UAV physics are very different. Landing an elevated glider with a clear path to its target is one thing, maneuvering between trees and power lines in a complex environment without rotors is quite another.
Then you need to look at a 'convertible' UAV with both features... undoubtedly this raises the cost, reduces the carrying capacity, and is already being pursued.
Finally, you could zoom out and re-evaluate the business case. Why not use a network of local dispatch points (handover points to ground-based UAVs or vans) to reduce the distance to the consumer and with the smaller geographic scope negotiate private airspace access on locally agreeable terms. I believe this is the future for general consumption (food, regular deliveries within small package weight/dimension limits).
So what if instead of being on a hill, we accelerate the drones on launch straight up? Make them bullet-shaped so they don't lose too much momentum. If we lose the requirement of them returning on their own we could also simplify the shell quite a bit. Small wings, guidance electronics and a parachute. Then do curbside collection of the shells once a week.
In summary: Rain the deliveries onto the neighborhood with a railgun.
In summary: Rain the deliveries onto the neighborhood with a railgun.
My packages already show up looking like they were dragged behind the truck. I can't imagine what they'd look like if they got fired out of a rail gun.
In real terms, I'm doubtful that the majority of people's goods would withstand that kind of rapid acceleration. Consumer electronics frequently break from hitting the floor, a rail gun would probably shred them. You could accelerate more slowly, but then you need more runway, and you might end up building a skyscraper anyways to get a delivery radius that's more than half a mile.
In real terms, I'm doubtful that the majority of people's goods would withstand that kind of rapid acceleration. Consumer electronics frequently break from hitting the floor, a rail gun would probably shred them. You could accelerate more slowly, but then you need more runway, and you might end up building a skyscraper anyways to get a delivery radius that's more than half a mile.
That sounds like such a nuisance, yet so cool! I can picture a beautiful tall geometric metal structure with drones zooming in and out like a mini airport
>> drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure
Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains? Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded vehicles that elevate themselves?
(edited for clarity)
Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains? Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded vehicles that elevate themselves?
(edited for clarity)
lifting those payloads up the tower would just use the commerical power grid and not batteries that you also have to carry up. cables and motors are much more efficient than propellers.
[deleted]
Reminds me of the pneumatic tubes used in hospitals to send labs between units. You can tour the pneumatic tube system at Stanford- it's several miles long. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/pneumatic-tubes-at-stanf...
An elevator?
An elevator indeed. But there's a cost involved in elevating goods to the top of a tall building. My question was, is that cost smaller than the cost of having drones with elevation capabilities take of from the ground?
Presumably the predominant portion of the energy used to raise an elevator is for the mass of the elevator itself
Usually elevators are counterweighted fairly significantly.
As you say it is actually using very little energy in overcoming the inertia of the system to go up as the counterweight outweighs an empty elevator, and the weight of a drone is insignificant in this regard. However when coming back down the system must raise the heavy counterweight which is only partially balanced by the empty elevator.
Not an expert in this field by any means, but I feel like most of a helicopter's thrust is used to keep it in the air, even when it's lowering slightly.
Maybe this can be efficient if the drone had a fixed wing so it can glide. Or we can make the "structure" really really tall -- perhaps the delivery plane can launch drones that basically paraglide into the city below, and the drones can fly back to a collection center once they've delivered the payload.
Maybe this can be efficient if the drone had a fixed wing so it can glide. Or we can make the "structure" really really tall -- perhaps the delivery plane can launch drones that basically paraglide into the city below, and the drones can fly back to a collection center once they've delivered the payload.
If we're talking about fixed wing drones in rural environments then it does makes sense.
A good example of that is this drone delivery service in Rwanda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c
Energy cost per time of use. drones might be a lot quicker to do the delivery job, particularly if the delivery point needs to be more secure than just tossing packages onto the front porch in plain sight as currently seems to be done.
I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the city.
I saw a mockup video of this once. I think it was for UPS, but I might be remembering that part wrong. The upshot was that it's not useful in cities, but could be used to make exurban and rural deliveries much more efficient because the delivery truck doesn't have to trundle down a bunch of long driveways.
I saw a mockup video of this once. I think it was for UPS, but I might be remembering that part wrong. The upshot was that it's not useful in cities, but could be used to make exurban and rural deliveries much more efficient because the delivery truck doesn't have to trundle down a bunch of long driveways.
Cities feel like the last place that would be a good fit for airborne delivery, at least in the US.
Take NYC for example: Delivery people on e-bikes are still harassed incessantly by the NYPD and community boards by people being scared of the possibility of being hit by them.
Factor in our paranoia about terrorism and a single accidentally dropped package would likely result in counter terrorism and bomb squads being called in.
I couldn’t imagine any proposal for giant flying robots with multi-pound payloads hovering overhead be taken seriously by even the most progressive leaders.
In hard to reach / rural areas, I could see some benefits from drone technology though. Drone chainsaws, anyone?[0]
[0] https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-thr...
Take NYC for example: Delivery people on e-bikes are still harassed incessantly by the NYPD and community boards by people being scared of the possibility of being hit by them.
Factor in our paranoia about terrorism and a single accidentally dropped package would likely result in counter terrorism and bomb squads being called in.
I couldn’t imagine any proposal for giant flying robots with multi-pound payloads hovering overhead be taken seriously by even the most progressive leaders.
In hard to reach / rural areas, I could see some benefits from drone technology though. Drone chainsaws, anyone?[0]
[0] https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-thr...
And presumably, even with detached single family homes in more spread out cities, delivery people don't just drop a package on the sidewalk. I live in a fairly rural location and packages are mostly left in my mailbox or wherever against the house. But I assume in busier areas, delivery people actually make a minimal effort to not make packages completely obvious from the sidewalk.
This is what I have been thinking but I would personally prefer they use trebuchets and launch the packages onto your porch (instead of using drones). Not because it would be practical but because it would be cool.
Is it really worth it to have your peace disturbed by hundreds of annoying little helicopters just so you can have a panini sandwich delivered in 2 minutes instead of 10?
What about all the paninis you can get if you can make the shot though? Think of it as urban duck hunting.
I tend to doubt that happening soon. There are still a lot of logistical issues to drones flying around trying to deliver packages to the appropriate locations without a lot of live human supervision. IMO, this more opens up a potential market to justify investment in the space to create solutions.
Without even drones, trucks could be motherships that dispatch deliverers on electric scooters for the last quarter mile. Scooters could catch up with the truck, dock to recharge and get new packages and then roll out again
I can understand it for some long-distanced batch delivery, by a giant drone.
However, swarms of little drones flying in the sky of cities or private properties seems incredibly irritating, however efficiently they improve deliveries.
However, swarms of little drones flying in the sky of cities or private properties seems incredibly irritating, however efficiently they improve deliveries.
I think about the truly massive # of packages delivered all over the place and think we'll need some significant routing protocols in place before we can easily get enough drones airborne without crashing into each other. Sort of a tcp/ip for millions of drones.
I don't think communication protocols are a good metaphor because they can be stateless. You can drop packets and it does matter!
A better way to think about it is as a shared data structure. It is a 3d vector space with some attributes that help predict the future. Each drone has a different version of this data structure in memory. The data structure has an initial state at take-off and is updated using radio communication and sensor data.
If the data structure is perfectly synchronised then planning is easy. There is plenty of sky and simple rules can be applied. But it never will be perfectly synchronised. in that sense it is like a globally distributed database.
The data structure may have been edited by another drone and the change not communicated. You may have lost communication and not even realised. Local conditions may have reduced GPS quality giving you false location information.
So perhaps an interesting metaphor is concurrency control. Do we lock airspace or can we have transactions? Can we partition or shard the airspace? When is consistent state required?
A better way to think about it is as a shared data structure. It is a 3d vector space with some attributes that help predict the future. Each drone has a different version of this data structure in memory. The data structure has an initial state at take-off and is updated using radio communication and sensor data.
If the data structure is perfectly synchronised then planning is easy. There is plenty of sky and simple rules can be applied. But it never will be perfectly synchronised. in that sense it is like a globally distributed database.
The data structure may have been edited by another drone and the change not communicated. You may have lost communication and not even realised. Local conditions may have reduced GPS quality giving you false location information.
So perhaps an interesting metaphor is concurrency control. Do we lock airspace or can we have transactions? Can we partition or shard the airspace? When is consistent state required?
Commercial delivery drones will likely be some form of VTOL fixed wing craft, which can be significantly quieter when cruising.
Additionally they can usually fly higher which further reduces the noise pollution.
Additionally they can usually fly higher which further reduces the noise pollution.
Here are two videos of our parachute recovery system in action. They are both for two popular commercial drones called the DJI M200 Series and DJI M300 RTK.
Video 1 - Third Party Testing - https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A
Video 2 - Promotional Video - https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8
Feel free to ask questions about how they work, what testing is required, or about the new rule.
Here is another article that we wrote today: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-...
Video 1 - Third Party Testing - https://youtu.be/jtzT5sKxf3A
Video 2 - Promotional Video - https://youtu.be/Yp53H77hgA8
Feel free to ask questions about how they work, what testing is required, or about the new rule.
Here is another article that we wrote today: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6749416334729195520-...
Remote ID Executive Summary: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executiv...
Remote ID Final Ruling: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Ru...
Remote ID Final Ruling: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Ru...
The actual release from the FAA today regarding the two new drone rules for "Remote ID" and "Operations Over People and at Night". The release includes links to executive summaries and full text of the rules: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...
Does the broadcast ID include location like ADS-B? Also, is it in the clear? If so, I see both fun and trouble ahead.
I wish drones could, at least optionally, transmit on ADS-B, with some "drone" flag. That could help pilots with ADS-B IN a lot, as long as it was clearly indicated as a drone.
but then Garmin couldn't charge you $5000 for another radio.
With the proliferation of drones the entire ADS-B system would get overwhelmed, which is why the rules explicitly state that uSAS' are NOT allowed to transmit on ADS-B.
Not to mention ADS-B OUT is expensive as all hell, power hungry and heavy - not a good match for lightweight unmanned craft.
Not to mention ADS-B OUT is expensive as all hell, power hungry and heavy - not a good match for lightweight unmanned craft.
I hear ya... maybe ADS-B isn't the solution here, but I wish pilots could somehow see drones on the traffic screen.
It should be enough to maintain minimums while the drones obey their maximums and stay away from airports. But that doesnt cover everything and it would be nice optionally show them.
The digital license plate for drones sounds a lot like the first step to implementing the same thing for cars.
Consider the HERF gun
https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your...
https://hackaday.com/2011/03/21/herf-gun-zaps-more-than-your...
I hope this never happens to anyone again (or worse): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFdh1w_n6M
I wish they allow drone flying in state or federal parks.
Say goodbye to apartment building rooftop privacy.....
This will bring about new technology to deal with the rising threat. People don't take kindly to being constantly spied on. I imagine many will take matters into their own hands.
Except everyone already does all the time?
Is that so?
I could easily take pictures of you in public with a phone and there’s nothing you can do about it.
[deleted]
I mean there is mass surveillance of basically all communication.
Little different when a drone is hanging out over your 52nd floor penthouse with an HD cam of your most of your apartment and the ability to get closer and see things in your place that you can't even see with your naked eyes.
Then I don't even have the option of throwing my phone or alexa in the fireplace.
This makes sense to me. Not sure where people are getting lost. This commenter p410n3 is clearly a cynic. Some people think the world is always listening, always watching them. But what they don't realize is they blend in with the noise because they aren't all that important. No one cares to listen to them. I don't think they like that answer though ;)
I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall. Because it's literally flying above me out of reach.
If I had tech to destroy it. I would use that tech. I guess a gun would work if you're a good shot. They use hawks in Scotland.
Then I don't even have the option of throwing my phone or alexa in the fireplace.
This makes sense to me. Not sure where people are getting lost. This commenter p410n3 is clearly a cynic. Some people think the world is always listening, always watching them. But what they don't realize is they blend in with the noise because they aren't all that important. No one cares to listen to them. I don't think they like that answer though ;)
I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall. Because it's literally flying above me out of reach.
If I had tech to destroy it. I would use that tech. I guess a gun would work if you're a good shot. They use hawks in Scotland.
> I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall. Because it's literally flying above me out of reach.
I mean, also because laws? When you're out in public folks can record you with the high def cameras on their smartphones today, and you're still not allowed grab them and smash them against the wall without consequences.
I mean, also because laws? When you're out in public folks can record you with the high def cameras on their smartphones today, and you're still not allowed grab them and smash them against the wall without consequences.
> I just don't like the idea of a flying high def camera in my face that I can't grab and smash against the wall.
How is CCTV that much different? Or people with cameras?
How is CCTV that much different? Or people with cameras?
[deleted]
Anyone want to bet in what capacity this will be used for (police) surveillance ? Especially since Alphabet and Amazon are involved.
Police forces have been using drones for surveillance since at least 2017, including beyond line of sight flights at night.
https://whitmancountywatch.com/2019/11/07/pullman-police-fli...
It seems that these regulations are focused on permitting private commercial flights similar rights.
https://whitmancountywatch.com/2019/11/07/pullman-police-fli...
It seems that these regulations are focused on permitting private commercial flights similar rights.
Thats exacly my point; when the police is under increased public scrutiny this type of dodgy shit gets offloaded to the private sector with little to none public interest of oversight.
I could see automated license plate reader and facial recognition use cases for sure. Depending on how high the drone flies FR may or may not be feasible.
Do automated license plate reader work via night vision systems? Could they be made to work?
Lots of license plates these days have high contrast between the letters and the background. These license plates are often usually covered in retroreflectors such that the high contrast is accentuated with any kind of light. A strong IR light source from an IR camera can probably read most clean license plates driving by without being obvious to the people being viewed. Remember that light follows the inverse square law, so if you're far away you'll probably need a pretty bright IR source to get a good high contrast read from a far away license plate, along with pretty good optics/sensor to reliably read the plate.
Yup - luckily this was for tolling specifically, so traffic was well controlled, cameras were close, there was a flash of bright light as the photo was taken, etc. Most photos you couldn't even tell if it was night or day if you zoomed in close enough to the vehicle. Less reliable photos would definitely have made for a more challenging (but more interesting!) project.
Ohio at least requires that there be a light that illuminates the liscense plate whenever the headlights are turned on, so no need for special night vision systems
Both of the comments below are correct. In addition, the system I worked on had a strobe that flashed when the camera took a shot. If you zoom in to just the plate it's actually pretty difficult to differentiate a day shot from a night shot.
goodbye blue sky
Whenever I encounter people flying drones - for example at the park - I find it highly obnoxious. The buzzing of their rotors is noise pollution that ruins the peace of a park/natural area, and while I recognize the right to record in public spaces, there’s something especially creepy about a drone flying along a jogging path near you armed with the latest 4K cameras. I think drone enthusiasts don’t understand how that can impact women especially. I also think it would be incredibly annoying to have drones constantly in the sky above you if our current volume of deliveries is moved from ground to air. I hope both are heavily regulated and curbed.
Agreed, I think personal freedom is great, but it should be closely tied to how much your actions limit the freedoms of others. One persons right to fly a noisy helicopter around using a smartphone is not worth 20+ peoples right to read, walk and enjoy nature.
I find a loud buzzing totally pulls me out of any reverie and makes me angry. I was watching the birds last week near a drone also and they were rerouting or turning away from the area it was flying in. Totally not worth it to disturb people, and even worse, what little wildlife still remains in the open space we have pushed them into.
I find a loud buzzing totally pulls me out of any reverie and makes me angry. I was watching the birds last week near a drone also and they were rerouting or turning away from the area it was flying in. Totally not worth it to disturb people, and even worse, what little wildlife still remains in the open space we have pushed them into.
As long as there are no rules against a Harley Davidson which can be heard by anyone within a mile radius cruising down the street at 10pm (same goes for loud muscle cars, trucks etc), it seems like we shouldn't go arbitrarily restricting drone noise.
With regards to cameras in public places, I'd be far more worried about somebody hiding in the bushes quietly with a DSLR that nobody knows about. At least with a drone you're very aware that it's there. If you want to change the laws about taking pictures in public places - fine (and good luck!) but again, singling out drones doesn't make much sense here.
With regards to cameras in public places, I'd be far more worried about somebody hiding in the bushes quietly with a DSLR that nobody knows about. At least with a drone you're very aware that it's there. If you want to change the laws about taking pictures in public places - fine (and good luck!) but again, singling out drones doesn't make much sense here.
It is already illegal to modify the exhaust to make your vehicle louder. Does't seem to bother cops though.
Right, I should have specified "Enforced laws". Considering how easy this one is to enforce, and how rarely it's actually enforced, it basically doesn't exist.
illegal where? that's not the case anywhere in the US that I'm aware. Most any legislation about exists is limiting modification to environmental parts like catalytic converters.
Here is a handy link of all 50 state's noise regulations for motorcycles. Not every state has one, but many of the larger ones do.
Also, many modified motorcycle exhaust systems will not have a catalytic converter in order to save on weight, this is especially true for sport bikes.
https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/motorcycle-noise-limits/
Also, many modified motorcycle exhaust systems will not have a catalytic converter in order to save on weight, this is especially true for sport bikes.
https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/motorcycle-noise-limits/
[deleted]
TIL. Thank you.
NY, probably every state.
But you have to consider that things are grandfathered in because we are used to them. I mean, if tobacco was discovered today, no one would be allowed to sell it. Changing rules on things like motorcycles and other existing vehicle is really hard.
This is a new thing, and (in my opinion) we should make rules based on how those things will affect us as collectively, rather than purely out of a need to be consistent with all existing things.
Remember also, how often are you bothered by a loud motorcycle? Living in a city, it is fairly regular here, sometimes in the middle of the night, but not THAT regular.
For all we know, drones over my house might be an every five minutes thing. Even if they are much quieter than that occasional window-rattling Harley, it could be far more annoying overall.
This is a new thing, and (in my opinion) we should make rules based on how those things will affect us as collectively, rather than purely out of a need to be consistent with all existing things.
Remember also, how often are you bothered by a loud motorcycle? Living in a city, it is fairly regular here, sometimes in the middle of the night, but not THAT regular.
For all we know, drones over my house might be an every five minutes thing. Even if they are much quieter than that occasional window-rattling Harley, it could be far more annoying overall.
I'd be more amenable to this argument if motorcycles etc were products that stopped production years ago, and we were left with a handful of privately maintained vehicles. The reality is though that you can still buy a brand new Harley today, for a relatively affordable price (starting at ~$7.5k). To be clear - I'm not saying we should outlaw motorcycles entirely... my point is that since I can buy a brand new loud motorcycle for funsies, neighbors noise complaints be damned, I should also be able to buy and operate a drone too. I'm all for new noise restrictions, but they should apply to everything.
I don't know if I can put much stock in the frequency argument either... If you live in a neighborhood and 3 guys with motorcycles move in, you'll be hearing them very regularly. Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today, and they're certainly loud enough to be heard, not even counting the extra wear on the local roads, and increased pedestrian danger.
I don't know if I can put much stock in the frequency argument either... If you live in a neighborhood and 3 guys with motorcycles move in, you'll be hearing them very regularly. Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today, and they're certainly loud enough to be heard, not even counting the extra wear on the local roads, and increased pedestrian danger.
"they should apply to everything."
Well that seems based purely on consistency, and I just disagree with that. I'm all for outlawing (or heavily taxing) newly produced, loud motorcycles, but it's not a hill I want to die on. Internal combustion is a fading technology anyway.
Remember that internal combustion replaced horses, which at one time covered city streets in massive amounts of manure. As new transportation technology arrived, should we have just said "anything that is equal or better than tons of horse crap is A-ok"? Or should we hold new technology to higher standards, while letting the annoying old stuff fade away on its own?
"Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today"
I find that an odd assumption. If the cost gets low enough, as it will, you'll have people ordering drone-delivered trivially small purchases that they want delivered immediately, such as cups of coffee. Meanwhile, the frequency of loud motorcycles will get less and less, as electric vehicles become more common over the next few decades.
If it were up to me, drone deliveries would just have to pay an annoyance tax, to compensate. This would create an economic incentive to develop other alternatives, such as robotic deliveries that roll on the ground.... which to me makes far more sense anyway, since they aren't spending most of their energy simply keeping themselves airborne as drones do.
Well that seems based purely on consistency, and I just disagree with that. I'm all for outlawing (or heavily taxing) newly produced, loud motorcycles, but it's not a hill I want to die on. Internal combustion is a fading technology anyway.
Remember that internal combustion replaced horses, which at one time covered city streets in massive amounts of manure. As new transportation technology arrived, should we have just said "anything that is equal or better than tons of horse crap is A-ok"? Or should we hold new technology to higher standards, while letting the annoying old stuff fade away on its own?
"Drones aren't going to come any more often than delivery trucks do today"
I find that an odd assumption. If the cost gets low enough, as it will, you'll have people ordering drone-delivered trivially small purchases that they want delivered immediately, such as cups of coffee. Meanwhile, the frequency of loud motorcycles will get less and less, as electric vehicles become more common over the next few decades.
If it were up to me, drone deliveries would just have to pay an annoyance tax, to compensate. This would create an economic incentive to develop other alternatives, such as robotic deliveries that roll on the ground.... which to me makes far more sense anyway, since they aren't spending most of their energy simply keeping themselves airborne as drones do.
ICE powered regular passenger cars are going to die off sooner or later sure, but I don't think motorcycles are going away in our lifetimes without some heavy regulations.
My gut says an annoyance fee makes sense, but I think we need to be careful... Maybe it's only something you enforce after you hit a threshold of deliveries per day/week or something? Today I can place a single amazon order for multiple small items (think batteries, toilet roll, etc), and there's a decent chance they'll all come on separate trucks, maybe even from different mail carriers. That doesn't feel much different? I can't think of too much more beyond a fresh cup of coffee that a drone could deliver that you can't already get today with services like UberEats et al. Should my neighbors pay an annoyance fee when they order pizza and the 18 year old delivery guy swings by with his radio on full blast? I'd love if the answer was yes, but that doesn't feel realistic.
Re: holding new technology to a higher standard... Sure, but we have to make sure not to disadvantage the new tech so much as to completely prevent adoption. If it costs $50 to get some batteries delivered in the next hour via drone vs $0 on an old ice-powered truck in the next day, we'll never move on. Even if we electrify the delivery trucks, they still cause significant wear and tear on local roads, and still pose a hazard to pedestrians (especially kids playing in otherwise quiet residential streets). We should be incentivizing companies and consumers to move away from this as fast as possible in my opinion. Make triple-glazed windows cheaper, invest in quieter drone motor tech, whatever it takes. If we regulated car emissions in the early days like we do today, we might still all be on horses...
My gut says an annoyance fee makes sense, but I think we need to be careful... Maybe it's only something you enforce after you hit a threshold of deliveries per day/week or something? Today I can place a single amazon order for multiple small items (think batteries, toilet roll, etc), and there's a decent chance they'll all come on separate trucks, maybe even from different mail carriers. That doesn't feel much different? I can't think of too much more beyond a fresh cup of coffee that a drone could deliver that you can't already get today with services like UberEats et al. Should my neighbors pay an annoyance fee when they order pizza and the 18 year old delivery guy swings by with his radio on full blast? I'd love if the answer was yes, but that doesn't feel realistic.
Re: holding new technology to a higher standard... Sure, but we have to make sure not to disadvantage the new tech so much as to completely prevent adoption. If it costs $50 to get some batteries delivered in the next hour via drone vs $0 on an old ice-powered truck in the next day, we'll never move on. Even if we electrify the delivery trucks, they still cause significant wear and tear on local roads, and still pose a hazard to pedestrians (especially kids playing in otherwise quiet residential streets). We should be incentivizing companies and consumers to move away from this as fast as possible in my opinion. Make triple-glazed windows cheaper, invest in quieter drone motor tech, whatever it takes. If we regulated car emissions in the early days like we do today, we might still all be on horses...
I disagree. A drone can be used to harass them with its presence in an anonymous manner. It can also more easily follow someone around, as opposed to someone in the bushes. A DSLR with a long lens doesn’t have that mobility, is considerably more expensive, and stabilizing video at very long distance is hard.
I’m also not sure what bearing a Harley has on this situation - we can reason about this without bringing motorcycles into the picture. But for consistency sake I am also against vehicles that are as loud as motorcycles and don’t accept the weak argument that the loudness is a “safety feature”.
I’m also not sure what bearing a Harley has on this situation - we can reason about this without bringing motorcycles into the picture. But for consistency sake I am also against vehicles that are as loud as motorcycles and don’t accept the weak argument that the loudness is a “safety feature”.
I've never once seen a drone and not been able to pin-point its operator within 30 seconds. Usually you hear the whirr of the drone and look around, there'll be somebody standing nearby with a massively conspicuous radio controller.
It's already illegal to fly drones outside of line-of-sight of the operator, and once they start getting big enough (>250g) to allow a longer flight time, the operator is also required to have a spotter, a license and register the drone with the government (USA). The new rules mentioned in the article also directly try to address this with remote ID - the idea is that it's a "digital license plate" which must be openly broadcast from all drones > 250g. So if you see a drone doing something illegal (eg no operator within line of sight), it should be trivial to report it and for the operator to face consequences.
My point about Harleys was that of precedence - we already live in a very noisy world where it's perfectly acceptable to buy/modify incredibly loud machines (louder than drones by a lot) for primarily entertainment purposes, to be used in public or residential areas. My leaf blower literally makes more noise than my drone and usually runs for 10x as long, to say nothing of a multi-stage gas-powered snowblower. My point here is that things are loud, and drones aren't even close to the loudest things we already find totally acceptable, so it feels arbitrary to ban them over noise concerns. For what it's worth, I'm totally on board with restricting night-flying for noise reasons, I just don't think we need additional laws beyond existing noise ordinance for daytime flying.
Finally, if you're feeling very paranoid about this from a camera/anonymity perspective today (TFA says the new rules have ~30 months before coming into effect), most drones broadcast their video feed on analog channels, so you can buy a $10 receiver that'll plug into any modern smartphone and you can see exactly what the drone sees. That should lead you back to the operator if necessary (bonus points if you record your screen for evidence of any wrongdoing).
It's already illegal to fly drones outside of line-of-sight of the operator, and once they start getting big enough (>250g) to allow a longer flight time, the operator is also required to have a spotter, a license and register the drone with the government (USA). The new rules mentioned in the article also directly try to address this with remote ID - the idea is that it's a "digital license plate" which must be openly broadcast from all drones > 250g. So if you see a drone doing something illegal (eg no operator within line of sight), it should be trivial to report it and for the operator to face consequences.
My point about Harleys was that of precedence - we already live in a very noisy world where it's perfectly acceptable to buy/modify incredibly loud machines (louder than drones by a lot) for primarily entertainment purposes, to be used in public or residential areas. My leaf blower literally makes more noise than my drone and usually runs for 10x as long, to say nothing of a multi-stage gas-powered snowblower. My point here is that things are loud, and drones aren't even close to the loudest things we already find totally acceptable, so it feels arbitrary to ban them over noise concerns. For what it's worth, I'm totally on board with restricting night-flying for noise reasons, I just don't think we need additional laws beyond existing noise ordinance for daytime flying.
Finally, if you're feeling very paranoid about this from a camera/anonymity perspective today (TFA says the new rules have ~30 months before coming into effect), most drones broadcast their video feed on analog channels, so you can buy a $10 receiver that'll plug into any modern smartphone and you can see exactly what the drone sees. That should lead you back to the operator if necessary (bonus points if you record your screen for evidence of any wrongdoing).
Honestly this just sounds like NIMBY. First there are loud drones and quiet drones, noise pollution can be regulated. Next the video from a drone for spying on a woman jogging is nothing compared to someone with a decent DSLR with a telephoto that makes zero noise. And third drone deliveries could have airspace carved out that avoids residential or places that would annoy people.
Now that said some people are obnoxious with it, they fly by people, make noise, I agree that should met with criticism, maybe fines, but I also believe drones will have a big impact in quality of life not just from delivery bots but police, medical, and including hobbyists.
Now that said some people are obnoxious with it, they fly by people, make noise, I agree that should met with criticism, maybe fines, but I also believe drones will have a big impact in quality of life not just from delivery bots but police, medical, and including hobbyists.
I had a neighbor hover a large, very noisy drone over my wife who was working in her backyard garden, out of sight from said neighbors, who were piloting from the house across from me. She was terrified. There easily could have been a large escalation. After my intervention it hasn't happened again, but the sort of judgement that leads to the stupidity in the first place, in my experience, cannot resist the lure to offend again, especially if the bad judger has been drinking.
I read the blithe attitude in comments like these, and I am sure there will be large escalations in the future. FWIW, in AZ, this behaviour appears to be legal.
I read the blithe attitude in comments like these, and I am sure there will be large escalations in the future. FWIW, in AZ, this behaviour appears to be legal.
Out of line of sight sounds illegal from looking at the FAA. Flying over people is currently illegal too. Flying while drinking is also illegal... Report them to the FAA.
The idea of police drones flying around is honestly even worse
Tons of police have drones for video, rescue, etc. Some of them are huge: https://www.dji.com/matrice-300?site=enterprise&from=nav
Personally I am less worried about police use of drones because their use is presumably helping deter crime and catch suspects who have committed a crime. With the right regulations and controls, I feel less violated from a privacy perspective than from random individuals using airspace for greater reach of their cameras - especially when they do things like hover over your private hedged backyard.
I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the silly internet requirement).