Comment by chrisdalke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisdalke | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

I’ve already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom window.

Some people have very different concerns about accountability of drones.

Magnetron and a wok for a dish. Kitchen counter measures.

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."

I hereby threaten to shoot any drones in my backyard with a garden hose.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Selfie sticks on subway trains present a far bigger privacy risk than fish-eye lensed sport-cams strapped to a flying lawnmower.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com