U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones/u-s-proposes-to-allow-drone-operation-at-night-over-people-idUSKCN1P828W

by tareqak • 8 years ago

134 193 8 years ago

The FAA is also proposing allowing discretionary waivers ... for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement.

Huh? What would be a legitimate reason for that?

solveit• 8 years ago

Surveillance for law enforcement is the easy one that everybody's going to worry about. I can also see some niche uses for wildlife observation.

lettergram• 8 years ago

Could just be for night shots over ones house or fireworks... OR for low flying drones to view citizens

stult• 8 years ago

The anticollision light has to be visible from three miles away. I could see that being excessive and disruptive for certain urban use cases.

bengotow• 8 years ago

Yeah this seems aggressive. At that brightness it'd be like having street lights flying down your block. Also seems like lights that bright might use a prohibitive amount of power?

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

The FAA cares about "equivalent level of safety." If it can be demonstrated that an operator can keep things safe even though they're breaking a rule, the FAA will allow a waiver for that rule.

Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there.

The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.

ProfessorLayton• 8 years ago

Lots of safety concerns are brought up, but I'm really curious how drones will play out in conjunction with noise and NIMBYism. Drones are loud, so I can't imagine that commercial drone activity (Especially at night) will happen without heavy pushback from locals.

NASA did a study and found that the noise drones make is perceived to be more annoying than those from cars [1]. They acknowledge noise-based pushback as an issue, even if they're no louder than cars.

[1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...

golemotron• 8 years ago

They are loud for now. That will change.

threeseed• 8 years ago

Fans, helicopters etc have been around for decades and are still mostly loud.

You can't escape the physics that moving air causes noise.

maxxxxx• 8 years ago

How? Helicopters are still obnoxiously loud after decades.

taneq2• 8 years ago

You can barely hear (or even see) a small drone above about 100m.

Forge36• 8 years ago

It's like a bee. You know its there, you can barely hear it. I can see why people get annoyed by them

cronix5• 8 years ago

multiply that by many, many drones. Those "small" drones aren't what they will use for delivery services. They are not nearly powerful enough to carry more of a load much more than it's own weight. They are even louder taking off and landing. I own 2.

toper-centage3• 8 years ago

Already happened a few times to me that I could distinctly hear a drone's buzzing but couldn't pinpoint where it was because it was between 50 to 100 meters high and some 50 meters away. It was just an annoying sound because it was a quiet, non windy day.

TomGullen• 8 years ago

I don't think that's a NIMBY - pretty sure people not into drones will just be against the noise in their backyard or other peoples backyards.

baroffoos• 8 years ago

Its such a minor and rare sound though. A car driving past you is so much louder and more annoying as well as being more common. In fact I can think of countless common and accepted sounds that we find acceptable.

superfrank• 8 years ago

No way drones are louder than cars, so worst case scenario, they get restricted to flying over already established roadways. Not a brilliant solution, but better than nothing.

That being said NIMBYism isn't always logical. Even if you presented a plan that proves their would be no increase in noise, I could see a lot of people not believing it.

deanCommie• 8 years ago

Yes way, and it's not the volume it's the pitch.

Drones emit a high pitch whine that is annoying and irritating, and ruins plenty of quite natural viewpoints with assholes trying to get that pullback shot for their vlog.

This isn't NIMBYism or Ludditeness - I'm pro drones for practical uses. I'm anti Drones X Instagram Influencer culture that permeates hikes, and stresses out my dog (who is even more sensitive to high pitched noises than I am)

ams6110• 8 years ago

In my neighborhood, a noisy drone would get shot out of the sky pretty quickly. Or even a not-so-noisy one, if it were spotted over someone else's property.

NikolaeVarius• 8 years ago

No they wouldn't. Have fun sending rounds into the sky hitting nothing but air. You can hit a randomly moving target at 1000 feet consistently?

hashkb4• 8 years ago

This seems inconsistent, coming from the administration of a president who is hyper-concerned about terrorism and tends to overstate the security implications of just about everything. Close the borders, but open the skies?

vokep3• 8 years ago

Close the borders to foreigners, open the skies to citizens, yes.

Maybe there is an informative comparison of border policy to airspace policy, but it has yet to be written here. Otherwise it seems the two aren't very related

hashkb4• 8 years ago

The point I was trying to make is that the gov't has no clear principles on what is dangerous; just politics and money. Deregulating drone operation seems to me like something you could choose to make very frightening, if you were in that business.

Engaging your argument... domestic terrorism / mass murder of citizens by citizens is quite real.

todd3834• 8 years ago

Under the FAA’s proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions.
For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an “unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold.”

I assume this also includes the weight of the package. I'm pretty sure most of my Prime boxes weight more than half a pound.

I wonder what the severity threshold is. Like, are propeller guards enough or is there still innovation that needs to happen?

hashkb4• 8 years ago

Also... weight is not a useful metric. A 1lb rock has very different ballistic properties than a 1lb feather. A typical 9mm bullet weighs 0.01lbs.

ricardobeat2• 8 years ago

Since this is about objects falling from a certain height, yes, weight is a useful metric for rough safety estimates.

A bullet does damage because it holds a lot more energy from being accelerated - a 9mm bullet will go around a mile up before falling down (source: MythBusters). Two 500g boxes dropped from a likely much lower height will have a similar effect (concussion?) when dropped on a pedestrian regardless of the contents, except for a few outliers. Even for small, heavy objects (like a 1kg camera lens) the load would be spread by its enclosure unless it separates mid-fall.

vokep3• 8 years ago

Right, but a box with a 1lb rock in it, and a box with 1lb of feathers are going to fall from the sky to your head about the same.

knome• 8 years ago

I wonder if they could deploy something like the airbags they had on the mars rover that bounced down, perhaps with vents allowing air to squeeze out on impact like a crumple zone and cushion a blow if it were to land on someone.

dylan604• 8 years ago

I doubt Amazon drone deliveries are what the FAA was considering with this proposal. More than likely, DJI Spark type of aircraft is what was considered where the pilots are looking to acquire video footage. Although a quick lookup shows the Spark to be slightly heavier than 0.55 pounds. That thing is tiny, so if it doesn't qualify for this proposed rule, then the crafts that do qualify would be more along the lines of toys. I was under the impression that the Spark was just about the smallest useful drone available. By useful, I meant can generate a decent quality image.

saalweachter• 8 years ago

Given that we're talking big business and liability, I would also like to see some sort of bond posted against accidents and injuries, or an insurance requirement.

perennate• 8 years ago

I haven't read the proposed regulations, but most likely it is a typo and should be 55 pounds not 0.55 pounds. Because the existing FAA regulations have a lot of things that change at the 55 pound threshold.

0.55 pounds doesn't really make sense, such a light drone can barely fly in modest wind and won't have enough battery life to go very far.

Edit: maybe 0.55 pounds is correct. Because that threshold is also used in other FAA UAV regulations. (e.g. UAV less than 0.55 pounds doesn't need to be registered)

Edit2: maybe not, see https://www.apnews.com/1c50bdd96d6244198df93d84c86bf156

toper-centage3• 8 years ago

55 flying pounds is enough to kill a person... No way someone could prove that 55 pounds of drone can't hurt someone.

theoh• 8 years ago

I don't get this either. Almost any existing consumer drone over 0.55 pounds could possibly fall straight down onto someone's head and kill them, in an unlucky scenario.

Maybe the requirement is trying to encourage (or allow) the development of drones that are spatially extended/soft, e.g. drones that contain inflated components.

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

Good. The US government has been restricting commercial operations of drone development for far too long. Many companies that were US-based are moving their operations overseas where the laws are more reasonable (Australia and New Zealand, for example).

This is a simple and reasonable step in the right direction. Open up legal operations for the smallest category and begin collecting data. It can help pave the way towards larger operations in a safe way.

cronix5• 8 years ago

I'm more than happy to wait to see how those citizens in other countries like the noise, before doing it here.

The privacy issues will also be interesting. Do you think these companies won't be attaching cameras to them as well to capture as much data as they possibly can why flying around? Then multiply that times as many drones as will be flying around. It will be great for tracking too, since you can theoretically have almost have 24/7 coverage, especially cities where everything is more compact. Just patch all the feeds together, like they do with cell phone cameras in Argus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8

codedokode3• 8 years ago

The drones can also intercept GSM equipment identifiers (IMEI), WiFi points identifiers, recognise car plate numbers and their owners' faces and sell all those data. This can even be more profitable than delivery.

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

In the early tests in Australia there's already a lot of complaints about noise. Making the flights quieter is already becoming a higher priority. https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/27/alphabet-quiet-wing-deli...

Privacy is also important, but it's a separate issue. Is there anything that can be done via drone that can't be done with a cell phone or a go pro? It doesn't make sense to outlaw hammers just because they can be used for murder.

edit: allow to outlaw

simplify• 8 years ago

Should I be worried about thief drones? If a drone can deliver a package, surely another drone can steal it too?

gpm• 8 years ago

Less than you should worry about thief delivery trucks. Drone's being more noticeable, and requiring more skill to obtain and operate (at least for now).

diydsp• 8 years ago

yes but drones can get away much faster making it completely worthwhile.

drones can also record entry passcodes, snap pictures of keys and license plates, spoof gps, carry guns, spray toxic gas, drill through buildings and sniff EM fields to see who is where and when. perfect legal data to resell to unsavories.

this would be a security nightmare.

drusepth• 8 years ago

This is one of those things that you assume is going to happen eventually no matter what. Why not just do it now?

That's not necessarily meant to be flippant; it's a real question: what unknowns have dissuaded us from doing this until now? Are they resolved now? Would they be resolved in the future given some kind of delay until this (inevitably) happens?

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

The major unknown that prevented this until now was the average age of the people working at the FAA. For a long time any request for something unusual was met with the simple response, "No". The FAA's mandate is safety, and they could justify disallowing new things for the sake of safety. They've finally realized that this is inevitable, and they can't just say "No" forever. A lot of the old guard is retiring, and the newer employees are figuring out how to integrate new technology safely.

reaperducer5• 8 years ago

the average age of the people working at the FAA

That's ageism, plain and simple. I hope you don't ever have to hire people, or you'll get your company fined.

cronix5• 8 years ago

One thing the drones really need to do before being deployed en masse (besides safety) is to become relatively silent. They are quite loud. I can hear a single one from about 1/2 mile away. I can't imagine what it will be like if many are flying all over, at all times. It will be like everybody is living next to an airport - something I consciously choose to not live close to due to noise pollution. Quality of life will go down, and people will become very annoyed. I own 2 drones. They are very loud and there isn't much you can do to quiet them. They are helicopters with 4x the number of blades on very tiny motors that spin very fast and are loud.

neaanopri• 8 years ago

I don't see this happening. The propeller physics aren't changing. If you are using the quadrotor architechure, directly lifting your playload with no wings, there's a sound-per-kg number that can't be engineered away.

iancmceachern• 8 years ago

Is Active noise canceling an option?

hoaw• 8 years ago

Elon Musk had a similar argument against, I think, flying cars on Joe Rogans show. I guess it is one of those things were imagination is greater than reality. Like a lot of space stuff (mostly in regards to distance).

Though I guess high and light applications would disturbe less.

mikeash4• 8 years ago

What makes a propellor different from a wing in this respect? Is it just because you have several of them next to each other and interfering with each other?

bigmattystyles3• 8 years ago

Tangent: I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away. My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

reaperducer5• 8 years ago

My point, I guess, cities, townships, what have you, don’t care about noise.

Cities, townships, what have you, will care about whatever their active constituents tell them to.

It took a few years, but a neighborhood organization managed to get a crackdown on motorcycle noise in Chicago. I don't know if it worked because I moved away before it went into effect. But there was a ton of press coverage for a very long time, so there's no way the offending riders could know that people don't like them.

Loud Motorcycles In Alderman's Crosshairs As LSD Noise Monitoring Starts: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170824/lincoln-park/loud-m...

tylerjwilk00• 8 years ago

I am not advocating loud motorcycles but as a rider I know from experience that cars on the roads will pay more attention and give more caution to a louder motorcycle.

A simple fender bender on a motorcycle can be fatal which is the reasoning behind the phrase "Loud pipes save lives."

Are some people doing it to be obnoxious? Probably. Are some people doing it out of the desire for increased safety? Yes.

abakker• 8 years ago

FWIW, California changed the minimum ticket for noise violations on vehicles to $1000 this year. They are apparently cracking down on it, as they have abolished the “fix it ticket” that used to allow the vehicle to be repaired and then the ticket is commuted. Now, the officer must fine you.

black-tea3• 8 years ago

There is an electric BMW that has a loudspeaker in a fake exhaust pipe to make it sound like a petrol engine to people outside of the car.

I think the negative effects of noise pollution are underestimated. It's never properly taken into account when people plan things. Part of it is many people don't understand just how soul destroying it can be (yet).

Shivetya• 8 years ago

Oh please, I have owned two new ones, the last in 2017. They are not exactly "quiet" as new but not nearly as loud as those who straight pipe. After market pipes certified for road use still must meet Federal law. Plus recently as for more current models the EPA slapped HD with fines and future penalties over the modification of the engine and exhaust which really has cut down on the noise because HD will void your warranty with the EPA blessing if you use unapproved modifications which includes exhaust. Plus Harley isn't unique in attracting drivers/riders who make their exhaust system obnoxiously loud and yes they annoy many of their fellow HD riders too - they get to ride in the back of the pack.

Plus if you are in California look up AB1824 which changed the loud exhaust regulations to assess a fine in every case. Used to be if you got pulled you could simply produce a receipt stating you fixed the loud exhaust and pay no fine but people were skirting that with obvious success. So yes, governments do care. Some HOA and Condo association ban all motorcycles because of noise.

Now with regards to drones, noisy little suckers. The other issue is a private citizen is heavily restricted where they can even fly them. State parks are off limits in most states, any place where people gather of course is out, you can even be blocked from flying them on your property by many HOA and Condo associations (mentioned them before for similar reasons).

Locally to me, Cobb County Georgia has an association for model aircraft that may support drones. They have their own field put in with tax dollars but "maintained" by user fees. Don't even think of using it until you pony up to two different organizations and an initiation fee and such. Yet places which are set aside for the legal use of drones may end up being this way unless the industry adapts.

My father's recent DJI purchase did not automatically include the propeller guards, seems there is good profit in selling replacement blades. It definitely is noisy and I would expect research into blade technology can remedy some of that, surely the military has already done so.

bujak300• 8 years ago

Oh you can get a fine in Europe for a loud vehicle. It can even be seized by the cops.

morganvachon2• 8 years ago

As far as laws dealing with vehicle noise pollution, it greatly depends on where you live. I'm in a relatively rural town that is considered part of the Metro Atlanta area, and we have a lot of strange laws as a result. For example, there is a local noise ordinance that allows police to ticket a driver for a noisy muffler on a car or truck any time of day or night, but motorcycles (which are often much louder around here) are exempt. The reason, of course, is that a few of the council members are also bikers, so they are putting their own interests above those of the community. There's been a proposal at town hall meetings to change the law to include any motorized vehicle, but it always gets tabled.

jfdi• 8 years ago

A reason motorcycles are loud (or made to be loud) is safety: when driving on highways or in busy areas, the idea is the noise makes the rider safer by offsetting their size disadvantage.

dsfyu404ed5• 8 years ago

I don’t think I’ve ever been more incensed than when I learned Harley Davidsons are quiet out of the factory and people make them loud. And while I can get a ticket for something trivial, I’ve never heard of someone getting a ticket for riding a motorcycle or car that’s obnoxiously loud and can be heard a mile away

They're not exactly quiet from the factory but people make them loud because thanks to the Doppler effect you need to be really loud for someone in a vehicle beside you to hear you (and they're unlikely to consciously see you if they want to move over because their brain isn't used to checking for objects that are motorcycle sized).

hndamien• 8 years ago

Or light pollution.

clay_the_ripper2• 8 years ago

Yes! My biggest single complaint about drones is the noise. I also own and fly a drone (for professional photography and video work) but I am LOATHE to fly that thing when anyone else is around. It’s just so dang annoying.

As a drone owner, it drives me bananas when I see people just flying them all over the place with no account for how irritating the noise is.

If drones could be made substantially quieter, everyone’s quality of life would go up and we could be saved from inconsiderate people with no regard for others.

brokenmachine4• 8 years ago

I honestly wish all drone owners were as considerate as you sound.

Unfortunately, anecdotally I'd have to say that the majority are not considerate.

sierdolij• 8 years ago

This doesn't really need another law. If something can be heard X m/ft away after night-time N (i.e., car stereo bass blasting at 3 am), or louder than Y anytime (i.e., concert without a permit), then it's creating a nuisance under existing legislation. It needs enforcement of what's already on the books if there's a complaint.

And the permit requirement to operate a small R/C toy is ridiculous: this information you don't want the government to have because it will be misused similarly to how social media was abused in the Gatwick Airport (non-)incident. The sensible thing would be classes (Class 1, 2, 3, etc.) of unmanned flying devices, as with model rockets.

https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws...

michaelt2• 8 years ago

  It needs enforcement of what's already on
  the books if there's a complaint.

Do the cops in your area respond to a noise complaint in less than the ~15 minutes it takes for a drone battery to run out?

fourTimes• 8 years ago

  helicopters with 4x the number of blades

I mean, what’s the difference between a helicopter with four blades, versus the same helicopter by with only one blade, but four times the size?

Except a full scale helicopter blade is easily 100 times larger.

So they are helicopters, but 100 times smaller, but with four blades.

amelius• 8 years ago

I guess army drones are silent.

michaelt2• 8 years ago

Army drones are usually fixed-wing - in the civilian market they'd be called "RC planes".

RC planes are less popular than quadcopters for hobby use, as it takes a lot more skill to avoid crashing them.

aedron• 8 years ago

Maybe if they fly them high enough? Or maybe wind would become a problem.

Also, dedicated drone corridors that are over roads or uninhabited areas, so at least only cars would be hit in case one of them drops out of the sky.

darkpuma3• 8 years ago

The solution is fixed wing "drones". The props on a fixed wing RC 'drone' are still loud, but for an equivalent mass in the air they are a LOT quieter than quads. They're also more efficient, you get more flight time with fixed wings.

There are just three problems:

1) Landing space (not a hard problem to solve with durable designs that have very low stall speeds.)

2) For some photography purposes, hovering is the only way to get the shot.

3) They're just not as sexy. People like quads because they seem a lot more sci-fi.

iambateman• 8 years ago

When I flew a Phantom 4 to 150 feet, it was basically invisible and totally silent. I’m guessing you’re thinking of much larger drones?

tareqak2• 8 years ago

Will they have restrictions on the cargo that these drones are allowed to carry. I know that the drones themselves will probably have rechargeable batteries powering them. However, if

1. the drone is carrying cargo

2. the cargo isn't sufficiently secure to the drone

3. the cargo contains rechargeable batteries / some other component that can explode as result of high speed impact with a sufficiently hard surface

4. the cargo lacks sufficient packaging material

5. the cargo happens to fall from the drone's flight altitude

then isn't there a risk of an explosion?

Update: Is this question inappropriate? I made it in good faith.

lutorm• 8 years ago

There are existing rules for transporting hazardous materials by air. I don't know if those rules are general enough to also encompass unmanned aircraft.

tareqak2• 8 years ago

That's a good point. Hopefully, those rules are applied and adhered to from the get go.

stcredzero2• 8 years ago

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites? Several years back, the PLOS folks visited my local hackerspace and talked about using balloons to double check chemical emissions of oil refineries near Houston. They had to use balloons, because there were legal problems with using drones. The concerns of overflown companies are quite understandable as well. For things like scientific instruments, what about some sort of inspection of flown equipment and licensing?

reaperducer5• 8 years ago

What if someone wanted to operate drones containing scientific instruments over industrial sites?

I'm not an expert, but if an company wants to use drones to monitor its industrial site, that's fine. It's private property. Just like construction companies use drones to monitor construction.

But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property, even if it's for something as seemingly good as monitoring chemical emissions. What happens when there's a malfunction and your machine plummets into a stack, or hits a person?

Again, I'm not an expert on this. I suspect nobody really is since it's all a new realm, and what few laws there are haven't been tested very much.

stcredzero2• 8 years ago

But you don't have the right to fly your drone over someone else's property

But if the government has the right and duty to regulate emissions into the atmosphere, they should be able to measure the air over a refinery. This is why I mentioned some kind of accreditation. Maybe the company could hire an independent 3rd party, whose work and devices can be inspected by all parties?

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

Actually, you do have the right to fly over someone else's property. It's well established law that Delta airlines does not need to ask permission from every land owner that they overfly.

A long time ago, property rights were 'Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos' -- from hell below to heaven above. (now referred to as the 'ad coelum doctrine') But that law was changed a long time ago. Just because you own the land, doesn't mean you own all of the airspace above it.

It has been tested in court that a property owner owns some height above the surface of their land. 300ft over the tallest structure is definitely in the public domain. However, the minimum altitude that one is allowed to fly over private land without permission has not been established in court.

A drone at 10ft could definitely be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 400ft definitely could not be pursued for trespassing. A drone at 150ft? That still needs to be tested in court. Then general rule is that a property owner is entitled to the enjoyment of their property.

peterburkimsher• 8 years ago

I was in Taiwan for the last 4 years, and went to many music festivals. At one of those, the drone continued recording videos even after sunset.

The weather was super hot. I was directly underneath at times, and the breeze from the drone was a very welcome relief. I wasn't scared about it falling on me, and the noise didn't disturb the music (although that says something about my taste for punk rock).

That may be different for large delivery drones, but I think that small recreational drones (e.g. DJI) should be allowed all the time, including at night over a crowd.

brokenmachine4• 8 years ago

Let me get this right: because you weren't annoyed by the level of drone noise while you were at a punk rock concert and weren't worried about it falling on you, you think flying them over people should be allowed "all the time"?

Like another commenter said, "You go inside if you want peace and quiet. The outside is only for the self-entitled now."

jMyles2• 8 years ago

One of the most important roles for drones is fully independent observation of police that is very difficult to physically disrupt.

If independent, amateur, volunteer drone operators begin to observe nearly every outdoor police encounter in the United States, without the police being physically able to stop it, that alone will be a big enough victory to justify many of the side effects.

Let's ensure that observation of government agents, whether at a traffic stop or a huge gathering, becomes a regular, legal, celebrated practice.

Nobody stands to benefit more from this than honest, integral police officers who live in fear of reporting their less savory colleagues.

vkou2• 8 years ago

I think a bigger concern is that the police will use drones to conduct ubiquitous surveillance.

leetcrew5• 8 years ago

the FBI already does stuff like this with little cessnas, albeit not at scale. [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveill...

flyinglizard• 8 years ago

Not that I'm advocating against police transparency, but just imagine what it would be like to livestream your work computer screen to the entire world. It sounds quite stressful.

krapp• 8 years ago

It sounds quite stressful.

The price they pay for the privilege of enforcing the state's monopoly on violence should be some lack of an expectation of privacy due to public scrutiny, that only seems fair.

drb91• 8 years ago

It sounds quite stressful.

So does being shot by police.

jMyles2• 8 years ago

More stressful than having colleagues whose power has corrupted them and knowing that nobody will believe you (or worse, that you'll be the target of reprisal) if you report them?

I think that taking the reporting part of police abuse out of the hands of police (ie, by ensuring that bodycams are a secondary viewport, while overhead observation by ordinary, independent persons is primary) will make the job less stressful, not more.

codedokode3• 8 years ago

First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone. Most of the drones I've seen have no protection. The manufacturers and owners don't care about the safety at all.

Also, what if the drone flies into someone's window or a car? How do you identify the owner?

jstplanecurious3• 8 years ago

First thing they should do is to cover propellers so that they don't hurt anyone.

Does anyone know why this isn't standard?

I Googled this question: "why don't quadcopters have safety cages" https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+s... ...

... and even saw cages that go around the whole quadcopter (not just the propellers as I was expecting). If those were a bit squishy they could seriously reduce any chance of concussion/property damage if landing on someone or something!

The YouTube video below is pretty amazing, it shows someone demonstrating such a cage.

"Spherical Cage Incased Quadcopter" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B3X6EvZ2XM

I've submitted it as a separate submission. (It's only 2 minutes.) He says it flies great, and he even seems to purposefully drop it several times from as high as the height of a building.

Also for anyone who hasn't been around drones much, in the middle of the video you can hear the annoying whirring noise people mention throughout this thread.

asynchronous139• 8 years ago

Does anyone know why this isn't standard?

Because cages weigh more. Minimizing weight is critical for anything that flies. If it weighs more, then it takes more energy to make it fly. If it weighs more, then that's less payload that it can carry.

sschueller• 8 years ago

They reduce lift and make the drone less efficient.

soundpuppy• 8 years ago

Good. God only knows how much money is wasted when you just want a camera in the sky to monitor traffic/incidents and are forced to spend money on a helicopter/fuel/pilot.

kozikow• 8 years ago

Drones are overrated in my opinion. Most of the "map an area" use cases are more cost effective via airplane pilots doing their miles. Most of the "monitor an area" use cases are more cost effective via CCTVs.

U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

Related Stories