Groundbreaking drone coverage of tornado damage piques ire of FAA

[jtchang]

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?

[michael_miller]

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.

[wahsd]

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"

[enraged_camel]

>> 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.

[wave]

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.

[bertil]

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.

[greggman]

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?

[FollowSteph3]

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.

[vajorie]

> What if it crashes into me?

First world problems. Literally.

[dmckeon]

"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

[tlb]

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.

[bri3d]

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.

[platz]

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

[MJR]

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

[subdane]

“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.

[baddox]

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?

[FoeNyx]

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...

[wazoox]

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...

[bobwaycott]

> ... 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.

[bertil]

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.

[JasonIpswitch]

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

[anigbrowl]

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.

[logn]

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.