Comment by kylehotchkiss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylehotchkiss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This article seems too statistics-y and not practical:

* Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before

* There's a difference between a jet sucking in a drone at cruise altitude (somebody got a cheaper model up 11000 feet last week, so not out of the question one of these days) and a jet at critical speeds (landing or taking off) sucking in a drone. Also, a drone into a windshield could cause panic in a pilot, a cause similar to the 2014 derailment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derail...). A drone could probably do a number on a radome or pitot tube as well, which wouldn't cause a terrible situation but an expensive fix.

* My friend who is a drone hobbiest has told me several stories of his drone "falling out of the sky" due to improper battery management. While newer drones address this with autoland, a sudden power failure still means a heavy piece of metal and plastic barreling out of the sky.

* People have a poor comprehension of 3d space from the ground. As drones get faster, operators could experience more tunnel vision trying to avoid an immediate collision and face a collision in their "blind spot"

I think FAA trying to make _some_ regulations for this is okay, just like I think the FCC regulating radio communications is okay (so you can't hear some 15 year olds radio chatter when you watch TV-highly illegal but technically possible if you built your own transmitter before TV went digital). A drone into an engine is not very likely to happen, but that's not the only bad thing a flying toy that can go up to 55mph can do.

>I think FAA trying to make _some_ regulations for this is okay...

YES! I recently built an acro/FPV hexacopter and am all for my right to fly, however, I understand I have some responsibilities when doing so and the FAA spelling out those responsibilities isn't a bad thing. Unfortunately others don't quite "get it" in quite the same way and pose a serious risk without rules and the threat of law. As an example, someone I'm associated with decided he'd take his new DJI out of the box on Christmas, toss in a newly charged battery (the most likely to fail in my experience) and have it follow his car from his house to town in a small community via the autonomous flight option. Along the way of course it flew within a mile of an airport, directly across the flight-path for the takeoff runway, without him even having eyes on his craft. He got excited and shared the video and of course everyone who knew anything about RC flight freaked out. He never understood any of the concern and thinks everyone was overblowing the situation and it was absolutely okay because DJI has an airport database. The problem is of course, that airport database doesn't contain listings for every airport. That and you should never toss a multi-rotor in the air without direct line of sight or a spotter for the entire flight and expect things will go as planned.

* Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before

That's what you would think from reading the headlines. "Hobbyists Imperil California Firefighters", "Firefighter-interrupting Drone Pilots...", "Drones Are Getting In The Way of Firefighters", "Drones impede air battle against Californian wildfires", etc. Here's a description of what actually happened:

> On the evening of June 24, he recalls, they noticed a drone. The aerial attack was immediately called off, out of fear of a midair collision; the three air tankers attacking the Lake Fire were parked the rest of the day. And the fire grew as a result.

A helicopter pilot saw a drone and grounded the helicopters.

The papers took a judgment call and twisted it into a story of active interference between drone and helicopter. And even that makes the generous assumption that this was an honest judgment call and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand.

While most reasonable people would agree that drones need to be regulated in some form, I'm afraid that they will be regulated with the goal of restricting their use rather than of ensuring people take reasonable precautions to reduce risk.

I wouldn't drive myself + passengers on the same freeway as amateurs trying to weave RC vehicles around my own. And I wouldn't be driving through the air hundreds of feet above the ground.

The fact that professional pilots and helicopter operators _have_ to make that judgment call for safety reasons because there are no regulations ensuring a safe flight is a concern.

The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison.

My problem is not with the judgment call; my problem is with the fact that their judgment call is being used as evidence that they were in danger. As you yourself point out, nobody really knows how dangerous the situation was. Extreme uncertainty makes conservative action reasonable, but it doesn't make drones inherently dangerous.

It would be nice to get some laws on the books to eliminate the uncertainty. My fear is that the laws will lean absurdly on the side of caution; an analogy would be putting a literal tin-foil-hatter in charge of the FCC.

I'd argue the safety threat is greater for a helicopter's passengers when both the operator and the amateurs are trying to reach the same target.

I'd also argue that the ability to navigate that 3D space competently doesn't exist from a fixed point at a distance by an amateur. Especially in an emergency situation, especially if there is limited visibility due to smoke.

They were in a dangerous situation. The uncertainty makes it an inherently dangerous situation.

Drones are no inherently dangerous, no one is arguing that. Drones can create inherently dangerous situations, however. This was one.

  The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison.

While this is true, in theory, the various flight pathes are very, very tightly regulated and controlled.

Here's an interesting (if rivetting) read what can go wrong when a plane deviates from it's assigned path and height

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901

I dunno, I think the people fighting a forest fire have a point when they say that they do not want to deal with some guy taking video (what better justification could the drone operator have?).

Imagine a hypothetical headline: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits."

This would probably upset you and your frustration would probably not be aimed at the cat. Let this be one end of a spectrum and put "drone interferes with firefighting helicopter" at the other end.

I don't see one vested interest's hunch as strong evidence that reality lies near to one end or another of this spectrum.

I don't understand what you are getting at. What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone?

If there was some meaningful need for random everybody to operate drones by forest fires, I might care that the pilots are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered, non-communicating) drones to operate near forest fires, so I don't even care if the pilots are just objecting for the lulz.

> What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone?

It's possible that the drone was exactly as not-dangerous as the black cat in that it was far away from the helicoptor and would have backed off if the helicoptor had moved towards it.

It's also possible that the operator was incompetent (incapable of remaining far from the helicoptor) or maliciously trying to run it into the helicopter. But I'm not going to jump to that assumption on some guy's hunch -- which is what everyone else seems to be doing.

> I don't see any need for drones to operate near forest fires,

You almost certainly have hobbies that I don't see any need for. That wouldn't be justification for banning them.

Feel free to ban carrying out any of my hobbies in the proximity of forest fire control operations.

Let's make the silly analogy more accurate: Firefighters ask witches not to bring black cats and mirrors to active house fires. Witches outraged, no one else cares.

f there was some meaningful need for black cats to step on mirrors, I might care that the firefighters are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered) cats to be allowed near mirrors, so I don't even care if the firefighters are just objecting for the lulz.

If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. Your quoted description matches the headlines you think are out of order - the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded), it did interrupt the firefighters, it did get in the way, and it did impede the battle against the fires. None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'.

> and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand.

Ah, right... the papers, they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...

> If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things.

No, it really isn't. Hypothetical scenario time: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." Was the black cat interfering with things? Or were the firefighters' beliefs about black cats and spirits interfering with things?

> the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded)

Sure, it follows -- if you assume their judgment was infallible.

> None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'.

I never accused anyone of acting maliciously.

> they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...

It's highly political, of course. I never pretended otherwise.

> Was the black cat interfering with things?

If you require intent for something to be considered interference, I guess you're not much of a wave physicist.

> I never accused anyone of acting maliciously.

No, my point was that that was what you were saying the papers were doing - you were saying that the papers were injecting malicious intent into the story. Okay, you didn't literally use the word 'malicious', but I think most people would not have a problem with it, given the context you were suggesting the papers were giving ("active interference" preventing firefighters from doing their work)

> Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before

Are you sure?? Every story about this turns out to be FUD.

Airports use drones to scare away the birds. Whenever there is a story of a pilot spotting a drone.... they forget to mention if they figured out if it belonged to the airport.

I've seen video footage of it. Don't have the link but it was bad enough to throw me into a fit of rage at the drone operators. There were like three or four drones flying directly in the path of a prop plane dropping some kind of retardant on a forest fire.

>bad enough to throw me into a fit of rage at the drone operators.

Then I would advise you to seek anger management help as soon as possible

This article seems too statistics-y ...

Except that safety is a statistical problem. The question is always whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

The FAA actually recognizes this. For example, you can build an airplane yourself for your own recreational use without having to comply with almost any of the rules for certified airplanes that are sold commercially, the rationale being that you know what you're getting into and you're risking mostly harm to yourself.

However, when it comes to risks imposed by third parties, like buying an airplane from a manufacturer, or an airplane being endangered by people on the ground as is the case with drones or people pointing lasers at airplanes, they are much more conservative. And I think that makes sense.

> Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before

Exactly. Bird statistics don't mean anything in this case because jackasses are flying the drones in "interesting" areas rather than random areas.

Having to have an FAA license that shows you understand airspace and its laws is not an undue restriction.

NO they DIDNT. Presence of one drone lead to scared people with agenda grounding whole operation. Do they ground those same planes in presence of birds?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com