Groundbreaking drone coverage of tornado damage piques ire of FAA | Hacker News Reader

Groundbreaking drone coverage of tornado damage piques ire of FAA

csmonitor.com

65 pointsnkurz57 comments

That footage is excellent and definitely show how valuable drones can be during disasters.

I don't envy the FAA. They are being dragged kicking and screaming into this new age of drone flight. It is going to take a while for good policies to emerge regarding the use of drones.

I personally am conflicted. I don't especially want a drove hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me? But I also want the freedom to go buy a drone and fly it wherever I damn well please (without having to have a permit or deal with red tape).

I'm not sure what the answer is. Require insurance for drone operators? Require licenses?

> What if it crashes into me?

First world problems. Literally.

Except in the 3rd world where the problem is less the drone crashing into you but rather the drone firing a hellfire missile at some suspected terrorist who happened to be near you at the wrong time.

>> I don't especially want a drove hovering over me wherever I go.

I think this is the future, and it is inevitable. We are going to have lots and lots of tiny drones flying around our cities. Some will be doing light-package deliveries, some will be doing photos and videos for journalism, some will be collecting information for various web apps, and so on. And all of them will be equipped (required by regulation) with sensors and software to avoid colliding with objects, people and each other.

I'm pretty sure Amazon's drone delivery announcement was a PR stunt and not real.

Bzzt. Wrong.

The footage, jokes and date it was released (Apr. 1st) made the PR stunt fairly obvious, but automated deliveries (using flying drones or something closer to Google-self-driving cars) are something that Amazon is seriously considering. It’s just not cost effective and practical at the moment.

However, rest assured that as soon as someone (presumably Google) manages to lobby a way to lower the legal burden of responsibilities on the human ‘driver’ because he or she was not supposed to pay attention, or react to the automated driving, there will be an way to argue that a car can drive empty. And, from then, they won’t be many truck drivers employed very soon. Drones for the last mile or last yard delivery might make sense, but I rather see Wall-E-like o Big-Dog-like bots swarming from the truck.

In other words: Amazon wasn’t joking entirely, but the idea of a swarm of flying things isn’t any more energy efficient then than it is now.

The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations. Drones are incredibly cheap, and increasingly easy to use off the shelf. Short of an all-out ban on manufacturer and sale (which itself would be very difficult considering how ubiquitous the required components are), I just don't see what they can do. It will be like trying to ban P2P downloading. No matter how stiff and high-profile the penalties are, people are going to do it if it's incredibly cheap, easy, and useful.

> The problem is that it will be extremely difficult to actually enforce these regulations.

I imagine it'll also be very hard to track a rogue drone down to it's owner. Too small for radar, too maneuverable to follow with an airplane or helicopter. Will we see police drones with automatic drone pursuit abilities?

You track the rogue drones by waiting for the owner to leak some information about them on the internet (obvious example is posting illegally-gathered drone footage to youtube, but there are more subtle ways)

You can track drones with cameras.

I fear the stupidity and ignorance of inexperienced drone operators. Our airspace is complex with lots of rules and regulations to ensure safe separation of aircraft. Trained pilots have enough trouble obeying the rules and being safe, so I question whether someone who has no formal training is capable of doing so. What happens if an inexperienced drone operator is going down the Hudson River corridor without reading up on the radio procedures, while I'm barreling down at 140 knots? Pilots are trained to look up special airspace before doing a flight, but how would someone who just bought a drone off the shelf be familiar with these practices? There's no inherent reason that drones can't follow the same procedures and be just as safe as airplanes today, but it's dangerous to have the attitude of "buy it off the shelf and go fly it with no training."

The privacy issue doesn't concern me as much, since it's already possible to rent a helicopter and follow someone around all day. The only attribute that's changing is the cost: rather than paying $300/h for a helicopter, you can pay a couple bucks an hour for constant surveillance.

Consumer-level "drones" are just remote control aircraft, which have been safely flown with minimal training and regulation for decades.

Flown in remote, designated flying fields sanctioned by a regulatory body whose membership were all trained and checked out.

At least in my experience. You didn't have people flying RC choppers or airplanes in the street.

They were quite a bit heavier, larger, and noisier so you didn't have the same issues as we're now having to face with drones.

Being small, lightweight and silent actually makes a good case for their use in many situations. Impact against aircraft becomes less probable and a lot less dangerous; silence undermines the case against disruption and noise pollution.

Drone seem like a very simple matter to me, it seems americans are ignoring a long of history with model aircraft and simply common sense, specially when it comes to privacy concerns. Simply making drones unregulated wouldn't mean the city would be dominated by them overnight. Common sense snooping regulations should apply. Do you frequently see people snooping their neighbors intrusively? Why would they use a drone for that? Common sense should dictate the operator is responsible for it's misuse and any accident.

In Brazil you are essentially free to use drones however you wish; there's no relevant regulation so you'd have to do something really bad to have someone come after you. Yet there's no drone abuse, and plenty of cool applications. I've been to a bike race some time ago and the finishing line was filmed by a drone, it was pretty cool. People are using drones for mapping, agriculture, media, etc. I haven't heard of a single problem with aviation or privacy.

Fairly small RC aircraft have occasionally killed people. So it's not so much safe as it is simply rarity that's allowed RC aircraft to be unregulated.

IMO, if your willing to fly it into yourself at full speed it's safe enough to fly without any regulation. More dangerous than that and basic certification seems like a reasonable precaution.

Pencils and frying pans have also "occasionally killed people" while remaining deemed "safe".

If you hit someone with a frying pan it's considered assault with a deadly weapon so it's not considered 'safe' just stationary without direct attention. You basically have to have to attack someone for frying pan's or Pencils to hurt someone, where all it takes is intention or any number of mechanical / software failures to cause harm with a drone which is a vary different situation. It's the difference between a car and a gun and you need a licence to drive a car on the public roads.

Genuine question, but does it change much compared to a wild bird ? Yhey don't respect regulations nor space rules either, and I hope it's OK. If we lump drones in the same category shouldn't it be OK as well ?

I would trust bird reflexes more than those of a random drone operator, birds aren't made of metal, and, without regulations, drones could weigh whatever the customer wants to pay for. News crews might replace their helicopters by drones weighing a thousand pounds.

Regulations do not necessarily mean that you can't fly any drone without a permit.

Have you seen the kind of damage large birds do to aircraft?

This wouldn't be an issue if we were only talking about upgraded small RC aircraft being used as drones, but some companies are selling much larger drones that are way outside of existing "bird strike" parameters.

You can't have dozens of unregulated news drones the size of a small car flying through the same airspace as rescue choppers.

"Most accidents occur when the bird hits the windscreen or flies into the engines. These cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft worldwide."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

Relatively few fatalities for humans, but very high cost. And they are not made of metal or durable plastics. They are also less likely to fall onto your head with rapidly rotating blades due to technical failure.

Very good points you make, and I relate. I own a drone that I use for photography purposes, strictly as a hobbyist and hacker/tinkerer. It makes people uncomfortable. Once I learned proper control I went into a few areas where there were a few people, and I could definitely see a few "uncomfortable" looks. I couldn't even imagine what would happen when more people start using drones in crowded downtown areas.

Maybe the problem could be solved at the software level, rather than through operator training. Drones would have the different rules governing airspace built into them, and would either override illegal operator commands, or at least warn the operator that he is doing something illegal, and log the incident. This would make them considerably more expensive, but it would solve the whole issue of regulation.

DRM for drones...

Not going to happen. There's nothing special at all about the hardware to fly one so if anyone can make their own there's no point even trying to put DRM on it.

This is the same as trying to ban certain 3d printer files the gov. doesn't like.

Hey, what are you up to in your back yard, neighbor?

In ways I agree with you, in others I don't. You shouldn't just be able to "fly it wherever I damn well please" unless you own the airspace above or maybe if it's land designated as acceptable for that purpose. I think certain laws of public access will probably translate well, if the government doesn't use this as an opportunity to curtail freedoms and liberty again. I for one don't want you "flying it wherever you damn well please" unless that means I can "shoot it down however I damn well please"

In the US at least, you don't own the air rights above your home.. the US government does (see the Federal Aviation Act).

So in your example, you just caused real property damage (by shooting down the drone) because it was on property you don't even own (the air).

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-f...

This all means law enforcement and the government will fly drones wherever and whenever they want.

Strange, because i remember reading that in the US you actually own the airspace above your property to a certain height (i think 500ft), and the law just requires you allow unrestricted airspace access to any vehicle under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the US military, or the US government. So i guess, technically, you could shot down a civilian drone.

It is a little more complicated than what I said.. The article has a pretty good explanation.

In the article: the first case the supreme court heard on the matter was a chicken farmer who said planes flying overhead were scaring his chickens, and they would fly into walls from fright. He had about 150 dead chickens. The planes were flying at 83 ft. He lost that case.

Here's the Wikipedia "air rights" article... it has a section on the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

A quote:

Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."[2] The act defines navigable airspace as "airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight…including airspace needed to ensure the safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[3]

It also mentions a 500ft min limit for sparsely populated areas. But note, that's a limit set by the FAA. They may lower it or raise it if they want to.

In the wikipedia article you'll also find a quote from a case by a property owner suing a nearby airport. I think it perfectly sums up the rights of property owners with regards to the air.. but it's a little long to post here.

Using a infra-red laser to blind it seems a more appropriate and cost effective reaction, unless the device itself is upsetting. Legal elements stand — especially FAA’s reaction to people shining lasers into pilots' face.

I look at it the same as a car. You can't just drive anywhere. So why is a drone much different. At least under the height for a commercial license.

In fact I can't just randomly go walking wherever I want. I can't walk through your backyard, or just stand and hang out there. I'll get arrested for trespassing. Right now the problem is that these rules haven't been defined, but most likely just like cars and walking there will be places where you can and can't go.

I highly suspect that the space above a private property up to the commercial line will be considered part of that's person's space. After that it will be like most everything else, there will be places you can and can't fly, just like there are places you can drive a car, take a walk, and so on.

At present, the Class G airspace up to 700 or 1200 feet ( above ground level ) is pretty much do-as-you-please in the USA outside restricted or prohibited areas.

You can fly unmanned balloons, helicopters, Macross robots... whatever. Essentially the FAA has no jurisdiction below 700 feet ourside controlled zones, so if you avoid those you can basically fly anywhere you want.

I don't especially want a drove[sic] hovering over me wherever I go. What if it crashes into me?

This type of fear is common for any type of new technology. I am sure people had similar fear when automobiles started to appear in the streets. They might have said "what if the car hit me while I am walking". Eventually, we will all get used to it and start to live with risks associated with it.

Aren't you agreeing with him? We don't just let anyone drive any homegrown vehicle anywhere with no rules.

Driving is highly regulated. You need a driver's license. Cars need to be equipped with certain safety features which must be inspected regularly. You're only allowed to drive on certain prepared surfaces, etc.

I'm also conflicted. I grew up with my mom and my neighbor sunbathing topless in our backyard. I don't think they'd have appreciated any drones snapping pictures and uploading them. Then again, maybe in this brave new privacy free world no one will care?

I'm assuming that a generic prohibition for loosely defined “irresponsible behaviour” is the best take: Police remain able to ask you to stop for any reason -- same as ‘reckless driving’, in a way.

That would have to be enforced by more powerful drones, able to out-run, capture and drag down commercially available models.

"Critics say one problem with the FAA's current policy – that amateurs can fly drones below 400 feet but commercial operators cannot – is that it doesn't seem to address any specific safety concerns."

The critics may not realize that this restriction largely has the effect of separating drone air traffic from air traffic containing humans, which is generally limited to 500 feet above ground, modulo take, landing, and, as always, emergencies.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html

the problem isn't with the height, it's with the distinction between commercial and amatuer.

There's a difference of scale. The number of drones that amateurs could keep aloft while maintaining line-of-sight is small, but large-scale commercial activity could put millions of them up.

Of course, there are billions of birds flying around so it's probably manageable.

I'd love to have a pretty simple law: Wingspan below 2m, total weight below 6Kg, flys with out restriction under 500m (aside from normal property damage laws and exclusion zones). Those numbers are based on the Bald Eagle, one of the bigger but still relatively common birds around America.

I think you've inverted the meaning of that sentence. The intent was to point out that it's odd that amateurs can fly but commercial operators cannot, not that the 400 foot rule does not address specific safety concerns.

I agree that drones should be regulated, having built (and crashed) a lot of them over the last four years. However, the current regulatory environment is effectively "it's OK if you're an individual and you abide by these vague guidelines for R/C planes that have been widely flaunted since their introduction 20+ years ago, but if you take a single dollar for it, we're after you."

That doesn't really make sense - drones don't get more dangerous the second someone takes money to fly them. Most commercial drone uses I've seen are for media (TV, realty/house videos, YouTube, advertisements, etc.) and tend to be conducted more cautiously and by more experienced operators than the random techies with flyaway-prone DJI gear who have popped up over the last year or so.

> That doesn't really make sense

Capitalism, man. Without a financial incentive, you dramatically reduce the use of drones. Approve commercial usage and you'll have dozens of drones flying around after every celebrity and politician everywhere they go.

Businesses will have drones hovering outside their doors all day with CCTV. Intersections and major roads will have a few drones above them monitoring traffic.

How about a reality show based on filming what goes on in backyards in suburbs all over the country. "Oooh look a pool party... lets hover around streaming this over the internet, there's sure to be some nudity or a drunk fight eventually".

I agree that without regulation, "approved" commercial drone usage could spiral out of control into the drone-dystopia you suggest.

I'm just amused by the the bizarre nature of the current regulation: amateurs regularly flaunt the supposed current guidelines (as they have been for 20+ years) and the FAA turns a blind eye until a single dollar is passed.

This kind of psuedo-regulation makes little sense and results in all kinds of hilarious (and equally illegal) workarounds. I once met a commercial drone operator who sold footage for TV by posting it anonymously on random video-upload sites, having the show producers "find" it, and then taking a kickback somewhere else for an "unrelated" job.

Good point. The FAA has long made strong distinctions between private (amateur/sport) and commercial operations, and I would expect that the risk/reward balance is at the heart of their initial rationale.

That said, does their current stance on commercial vs. amateur drones stem from reasoning, institutional momentum, or a desire to get a lot of drone-relating rule-making resolved before opening the door to commercial drone operations?

ps - if ever we get to having flying cars, we will have a similar set of discussions.

Last month Patrick Geraghty, an administrative law judge with the National Transportation Safety Board ruled "the FAA regulations approved for manned aircraft did not apply to unmanned aircraft any more than they applied to paper airplanes or balsa wood planes."

The FAA is appealing the decision, but as of right now it may pique their interest, but it's not illegal.

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/us/drone-pilot-case-faa/ Full decision: http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf

“Five years from now, this is going to be commonplace, that people use drones to document news stories” I realize this statement is probably obvious in the abstract, but the footage makes it viscerally obvious.

The crazy part is, this type of footage can easily be produced with less than a thousand dollars of gear, assuming we're okay with a GoPro and not a truly professional camera (and for breaking news coverage, I think GoPro quality is perfectly sufficient).

How much does a news helicopter cost? A thousand dollars an hour, plus huge initial costs?

In France last summer, a TV channel was allowed to take a drone footage of the city of Lourdes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes ) just after a flood : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x112qvt_inondations-a-lourd...

And a young boy was chastised for filming his city (Nancy) from high up: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/02/14/un-lyceen-p...

then got a job to do precisely that from the new mayor:

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/02/19/le-maire-de...

> ... a potentially vexing frontier that pits curious citizens against a government with qualms about the spying potential of drones.

Riiiiiiight. The government exhibits such strong qualms about the spying (or other advantageous) potential of drones (or any other technology). Perhaps only when deployed and controlled by citizens instead of government. Or when lacking missile outfitting that delivers targeted destruction to state-sanctioned targets.

A solution, or rather loophole the FAA might argue, would be to create a non-profit whose cost the commercial entity covers, but is free to undertake any operation they deem endearing. Police might change their mind if said non-profit proves a free and reliable asset in their own investigations.

Our decision loops for things like regulation have become too slow to deal with reality. The greatest threat to the Federal Government is irrelevance.

The Federal government doesn't make rules just for the sake of having something to do. Aviation in particular is a complex and risky pursuit, and having a single set of rules has been a huge commercial and safety advantage for the US. I shudder to think what air travel would be like if there were 50+ different state regulators. Also, bear in mind that things like FAA rules are not drawn up in a vacuum, but with the participation of commercial aviators from small to large. My impression from talking to people who pilot planes is that the FAA is one of the better-functioning parts of the federal government, along with the NTSB.

You don't know the federal government very well then. It is _exactly_ why they do it. It is the sole reason why our government is deemed to have been "productive" by the number of laws it passes. Because the government is not a market governed by scarcity, make work and busy work is exactly what keeps it busy and speciously relevant and necessary.

I think we do just fine not changing regulations too quickly. The banking industry worked smoothly until we tinkered with regulations starting in the 90s. The Internet was private enough until the Patriot Act. Also, anyone in a regulated industry can tell you, regulations change every year (or more often) and many resources are poured into just staying compliant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com