Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpncrunch | Hacker News Reader

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.

Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good example (see the description):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH7y8-gkkN0

The vast majority of drone users won't bother looking up the aviation charts to see if they are inside a control zone or other controlled airspace, and won't have any idea how far away they are from an airport.

View on HN

I fly my quadcopter in the UK. It would be nice to have an app that told me about the airspace I was in based on my current position.

However, right now I am not flying higher than 10 meters from the ground.

Round up a team and put it in the ApplyHN sector - that could be a really useful, pay-for-app & updates type service. Definitely has value. The target market should be able to see the cost-benefit I presume. Good thinking!

Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.

I guess that's how most startups get started AFAIK?

Unfortunately yes, which is why you get founders awkwardly trying to answer questions like.. "How does your product compare to X and Y that are dominating the space right now?" when they've never heard of X or Y.

> Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.

All that without specifying whether or not you have knowledge in the space. You probably should have specified X and Y are already in the space rather than assuming that someone already has taken up space there.

Besides the established ones mentioned in siblings, there's https://airmap.io/ which is quite good.

X and Y are dominating the space? Good, there's a proven market.

Oh dear, it's worse than I thought.

Nothing can go wrong. And if it does: Pivot.

I'm assuming it's not the first time people have tried to start a business without understanding the competition - I'm not sure it's startup-specific.

>Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.

Haha joke's on you buddy, I grew up around aviation and know that log books and maps are what pilots must always have at all times in all situations otherwise they'll get popped by the FAA. Only recently have digital devices been allowed anywhere NEAR professional cockpits, having been slowly tested in civil aviation. Thus I concluded that an expanding sector with limited knowledge of traditional expectations - airspace 'n shit - might be marketable. Watching your comment turn grey and then to vapor is more "Classic HN" to me.

To be fair to your parent, the feature is already deployed in popular drones (both dji and 3dr).

It's hard to see a market for something already built in for free (airspace restrictions) and anyone familiar with current drones would know this.

Perhaps, but with the recent move to classify straight up toys as "drones", those things probably aren't going to have such intelligence built in.

There would be value in being able to pull up my phone and find out "Yes, there are no arbitrary restrictions on flying right here".

It's already there, i have either my phone or tablet out when i use my 3DR Solo (it displays the video feed). One screen of the app which displays the video feed, is airspace restrictions on a map of the current area (although you can pan and zoom around the world in order to plan future flights too).

Considering the cost of both DJI and 3DR and the inevitable down-stream development and access, unless each and every manufacturer is mandated to include "smart" flight restrictions, then I would say the point stands. Making a useful application and product is fun to spit ball. Whizzing out some sanctimonious pontification is feeble.

Thanks for putting "Intellectual Wannabe Inventor" in your profile, it wasn't clear from that comment.

It seems like there could be something of an aspirational market there for 'prosumer' drone pilots who follow the rules because it makes them feel more like professionals. Include some resources on interesting uses of drones, maybe a little marketplace for connecting camera drone pilots with marketers or landowners...

Absolutely - if anything, the excuse of "ignorance" factor would be a lot less. Reducing the risk of liability is a reasonable avenue in my opinion. Also if "drone racing" and the like start to get more popular, having advertisements for regional facilities could be mutually beneficial.

https://skyvector.com/

Foreflight[1] does something similar already but they are focused on traditional flight. This is an interesting idea.

[1] https://www.foreflight.com/

Foreflight costs $99/year. There are free alternatives:

- FltPlan Go app for android and ios

- skyvector.com

I use the FltPlan Go app when flying, and skyvector.com to look at the charts from a browser.

http://www.hoverapp.io/

Not sure of UK coverage though.

Hover used not to have any info in the UK. It now does! Sweet update.

But note that no-fly zones are pretty onerous: all the best parks in $town are occluded by the huge zone for an out-of-town airport.

Likewise a local beauty spot that occasionally activates for military training is marked without any timely activation data. Is it hot or not? The zone is larger than the current NOTAM, which suggests they're being completionist, which is maximum ass-covering and minimally useful.

This sort of blunt zoning mostly doesn't make sense, and will likely get ignored.

(in fact, if that same zoning applies to geofences, all the $town flyers own bricks)

Real pilot info is semi-useful: http://notaminfo.com/ukmap ; the legal 400ft limit is 120m, which is an invisible speck in the sky. Useful for setting ceilings for waypoint flight, etc.

You mean 33 feet. Height and altitudes below the transition level are in feet, not metres.

They should still know the relevant law instead of relying on technology. There isn't that much you need to know.

In the UK, article 166 and potentially article 167 of the Air Navigation Order (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&m...) are relevant. In any case, the drone should be within line of sight, lower than 400 feet above ground level, and not be in controlled airspace or near an airport (which should be checked on an aeronautical chart - they're only about £25 and look good on your wall).

This gives a quick summary of both articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/drone-rules-everything-...

And bear in mind that there are cases where pilots might be flying light aircraft well below 400 feet AGL away from an aerodrome: during ag operations (crop dusting), during a forced landing, or during a practice forced landing under instruction, so even with the ANO rules there's still potential (albeit unlikely) conflict.

As soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.

If we argue that regulations don't stop criminals (DRM etc) then doesn't it also hold true that regulations wouldn't stop do-gooders? (sorry, not the best word).

It wouldn't stop activists from filming "restricted" areas, no, but it could give authorities a way to tack on additional charges ("terroristic disabling of an aviation safety device" or the like) when they inevitably find the person who leaked the video.

Another slippery slope argument. We're talking purely about controlled airspace here. Those things you mention have never been controlled airspace.

In general the slippery slope is not actually a fallacy.

British law is very restrictive on the use of camera-equipped UAVs. Without specific permission from the CAA, it is unlawful to use a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 150 metres of "any congested area" or within 50 metres of "any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft".

It's a common tactic used by governments to push a restriction under a (often emotional) motive that looks legitimate at first and then extend it further.

"We need to do this or that because terrorism and won't somebody please think of the children."

"Well, now that it's in place, it would be a shame not to use it against illegal <insert something harmless or subversive here>."

And usually they manage to design laws so that diverting their use doesn't require passing through parliament again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com