Drones With an Eye on the Public Cleared to Fly
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
A new [US] federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors — from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films. Local police and emergency services will also be freer to send up their own drones. ...
Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015.
Most of the rest of the article is about privacy concerns.
As other have said, there are many many commercial/non-military uses for these things and we have to have someway to allow their regulated, legal use.
Also, most of these drones (at least the ones I'm building) use open source hardware and software (OpenPilot, Arducopter (DIY Drones), etc) which can be monitored by the general public. I don't think it's quite time to put on the tin-foil hats with this--the FAA is just trying to make our airways safe and make sure aircraft that are carrying humans continue to do so safely.
In the "real" world, it's about whether the aircraft operates with pilot on board (traditional aircraft), within direct view of an operator (rc), or neither (drone)
- RC Flying (hobby): Line of sight, RC controlled radio aircraft (non-turbine) that stay below 400'
- RC Drones (hobby): Line of sight, RC controlled but capable of unmanned flight either via pre-programmed instructions or GPS (note: regardless of capabilities, these aircraft must sill stay below 400' and be non-commercial)
- Commercial Drones / RC-for-hire: These are aircraft that are flown for commercial reasons (aerial photography, crop monitoring, surveillance)--meaning someone is giving you $$ to operate the aircraft. They could just be normal, off-the-shelf RC airplanes -- but it's use is what is restricted.
The reason that the FAA is concerned with commercial use is that in order for that to work, drones need to be safely integrated into US airspace. How would you feel if you were taking a flight from SFO to ORD and some jackass with a "drone" gets his multi-copter sucked into your engine? Also, there are insurance issues with this as well. I have insurance through the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) which covers me if I fly my 5 pound airplane into a house or mess something up (so long as I'm flying in designated areas for non-commercial purposes).
What happens when someone who's doing aerial photography for a wedding and his heli falls out of the sky (they do that sometimes) hurting a guest? Who pays for that? Insurance companies need a way to asses the risk of these thing flying around commercially.
Lots to think about--privacy, safety, big brother...
Seriously, this is insanity.
One day soon they'll be able to track someone from birth to death, in realtime.
There are obvious concerns about the the use of drones by law enforcement, etc., but those can and should be dealt with separately. You don't control abusive surveillance by banning technologies, whether that be drones or cameras or microphones or GPS radios or whatever. You control abusive surveillance by banning particular uses of those technologies, particularly by the state.
There is zero overhead to running 1000 drones over a city once they get the technology right. Neighbors will be spying on neighbors in every detail.
Good luck closing the door on privacy once it's blasted open like this.
If not by straight out hiring them, they will just subpoena for their data.
What about if I deem your drone a nuisance/pest (in my airspace) and shoot it down?
http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down...
In the common law tradition, land owners' property rights extended literally "to the heavens" [0]. Overflying someone's property (in a balloon, say) was legally a trespass. But in the United States land-owners' air rights were progressively diminished by the courts in deference to practical considerations as civil aviation developed in the first half of the last century. In 1946, in a ruling that is the basis of current law, the Supreme Court decided that a land-owner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface." [1] Rights to the rest of the country's airspace appertain to the federal government.
So if your nemesis sends a drone into the space immediately over your property, you would likely have the same rights to respond as if he had sent a land-lubbing robot onto it. (Courts have ruled that a crane overhanging one's property constitutes a trespass, for instance.) Generally you would be able to seek an injunction against continued trespass and/or sue for damages under various torts (interference, nuisance, etc.). You probably would not have the right to shoot down the drone, unless perhaps you have reason to believe that the drone might do you serious harm and you are in a jurisdiction where some form of the Castle doctrine [2] applies.
Rights to airspace, and how they've changed over the years, are a great illustration of how property rights are not at all static but are continually rejiggered to fit the times. (Perhaps we can expect more tweaks as drones become common?) Michael Heller's book Gridlock Economy [3] has an interesting chapter on how rights to airspace have been adapted to allow for civil aviation. If you're super interested, there is at least one full-length book [4] (which I haven't read) on the history of the legal concept of airspace in the United States.
0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_...
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
3. http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Economy-Ownership-Markets-Inn...
4. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674...
I fully expect people to shoot at them from the ground (and it's already happened, as evidenced by a post in this thread).
Additionally, I fully expect people to create drones that attack, disrupt, etc other drones.
Thanks for the in-depth reply.
Drone proponents say the privacy concerns are overblown.
Randy McDaniel, chief deputy of the Montgomery County
Sheriff’s Department in Conroe, Tex., near Houston, whose
agency bought a drone to use for various law enforcement
operations, dismissed worries about surveillance, saying
everyone everywhere can be photographed with cellphone
cameras anyway. “We don’t spy on people,” he said. “We
worry about criminal elements.”
Giving the capability of aerial surveillance to anyone who can afford a drone would mean the end of outdoor privacy, even in your own backyard, no matter how tall your fence is. Say goodbye to the sun.
It's my understanding that in the US, planes today have to maintain a certain distance from people and structures (500 ft?).
I wonder if you saw a drone 50 feet above your house if you would be in your right to, say, get out your slingshot and defend yourself. Even if the done weren't hostile, a drone helicopter could be dangerous if it runs out of energy and falls on your head.
Although, 500 feet is not far at all. I've taken a friend up with a telephoto lens and a mid-range SLR and even at 1,000 feet there's not much privacy.
I wonder how many hours it's going to be before someone shoots one.
sqrt(2gdistance) = Sqrt(232.3(400 feet)) = 160 f.p.s.
with about 160 fps * 4.4lbs = 700 ft-lb of energy
!!! Well, maybe not!
It's not standard if there's only one industrialized country left in the world that uses it :)
If I utter kilometers to anyone, they look at me funny.
I spent 5 years training myself to unlearn imperial in about 1990.
"700 foot-pounds = 9.49072564 × 109 ergs"
Somehow I don't think that helps. Are you happy now?