Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/drones-at-a-crossroads/

by 0cool • 13 years ago

48 33 13 years ago

negativity3• 13 years ago

I would rather be on a flight, where I know that the pilots dies with me, should they fail in their appointed task of controlling the aircraft strapped to their bodies.

Similarly, if an aircraft suddenly falls from the sky and lands on my head, my death would be a slightly happier affair for my family, so long as they know the person charged with it's stewardship was also killed (or at least injured) by the accident.

Even though a robot, or hybrid system of remote and autonomous flight control might prove to be statistically more reliable, I find it preferable when the burden of having lives hang in the balance is shared equally among all participants, even when the human in control might be feeling drunk and slightly suicidal on some grey Monday morning, perhaps after a recently emerging from a messy, dehumanizing divorce.

Am I alone in feeling oddly reassured by this grim social contract?

JshWright3• 13 years ago

I don't know if you're alone, but you're certainly 180 degrees opposite of how I feel...

That's not really the point of the article though. The article is (mostly) talking about small (a few kg) battery operated machines that even in the hands of a seriously irresponsible operator are unlikely to cause any mass carnage.

negativity3• 13 years ago

Here's my line of thinking: Right now, we're essentially conditioned to the premise that when something is sailing through the air, the general gut instinct for what that UFO might be is usually limited and pretty reliable. There's a certain predictability to mere birds, baseballs, kites, balloons, et c...

When it isn't one of those ordinary things, that certain predictability pretty much goes out the window. I don't find the idea of adding remote control aircraft to my list of normative conditioned responses to flying things particularly appealing.

In my gut, I have an instinct to smash mysterious flying things that I perceive as threatening, regardless of how rational that perception is. When a bug flies too close to me (and especially my ears), my reptilian brain takes over, and demands swift, brutal action. It's that same sort of fear that Hitchcock tapped into with The Birds.

I grew up around farm fields with crop dusters, and those didn't bother me growing up, because I could see the guy inside the bubble dome cockpit, and wave to him, and he'd wave back sometimes, right before dive-bombing potato beetles with insecticide.

But take away the pilot from that equation, and I don't feel the same. The degree of investment from my conscience changes, and the air craft enters a new realm of human perception. It's private property, sure, but it's set in motion with uncertain intent.

When people make sport of these unmanned flying things (and they certainly have: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/18/colorado-town-p...), I understand the sentiment of that stance. It's something mysterious flying over your head, and at a personal level, that taps into some specific emotions that aren't easy to part with.

jamesaguilar• 13 years ago

Lives aren't meaningfully hanging in the balance when you're talking about a four-pound drone that is being flown only kinda recklessly, and only near volunteers.

erikcw• 13 years ago

"I would rather be on a flight, where I know that the pilots dies with me, should they fail in their appointed task of controlling the aircraft strapped to their bodies.

If the cause of the accident is pilot error, then sure. But what about everyone else who has direct impact on the safety of your flight (i.e. mechanics, air traffic control, etc). They share much of the responsibility for the soundness of your aircraft, but are only restrained by their conscience and possible legal recourse.

mfenniak• 13 years ago

Well, how would you feel if your death on a plane crash was actually the responsibility of an Air Traffic Controller on the ground, and not the pilot of your aircraft (who also may or may not have perished)? Seems like you could already be in this situation, as there have been some very serious accidents caused by ATC error.

negativity3• 13 years ago

There's a certain sort of "figure head" status that the pilot may assume, when degrees of control are acquiesced to external factors beyond the capacity for a mortal human's situational awareness. The global awareness of air traffic, and mechanical state is often placed beyond the scope and reach of the pilot's abilities as an individual.

But the decision to step over the threshold and place the airframe in a circumstance of danger rests with the pilot. The pilot possesses the choice and power to throttle up, and take flight. Regardless of prior certainties and ambiguities, a pilot makes the decision, estimates the risk and rolls the dice. The plane is in the air because of the pilot's direct action, even if decisions are made based on proxied information from inspectors or ground control.

The passengers, too, roll the dice by delegating control over their lives to the pilot. They've chosen to accept the implicit risks that the pilot has assessed.

People on the ground also collectively acquiesce to the risk of having planes over head. When we don't agree with the idea, sometimes the only way to settle matters is with anti-aircraft artillery.

So we do have a form of choice regarding whether or not UAVs are permitted over head. How the enforcement of such "authority" and "regulations" takes place might become it's own beast.

JshWright3• 13 years ago

I've been exploring the idea of using a multirotor 'drone' to improve the situational awareness of the command and operations officers on the scene of events like house fires.

Listen to the radio traffic from a typical residential house fire, and you'll find a non-trivial amount of the traffic is simply people trying to explain what they're seeing from their vantage point (e.g. changing smoke/fire conditions on the rear of the structure, imminent collapse of a portion of the roof, etc).

A multirotor with a gimbeled camera orbiting a few dozen meters above the scene could dramatically improve the chief officer's visibility of the event, increasing safety, and allowing for better tactical decisions.

This article lays out some of the largest issues I've run into.

tron_carter• 13 years ago

Many municipalities have gotten waivers for police & rescue to use drones. I don't see why the fire department would have any issues in getting clearance to ultimately help save the lives of firefighters & fire victims.

aray4• 13 years ago

This is exactly the sort of thing I hope the FAA regulates. Multirotors now still have a very bad track record for long-term reliability, and even any-formfactor remotely operated air systems have been advised not to fly around densely populated areas for fear of harming someone.

And you want to fly these vehicles not only in densely populated (residential) areas, but in and around disaster and emergency situations?

I can see it being used as a tool by emergency response, but if I was a first responder and someone did that on my site I'd do what I could to get it down and stopping endangering everyone present.

JshWright3• 13 years ago

I am a first responder. This would obviously require buy-in from the agency involved (that's the whole point... to provide the guy wearing the white helmet with a live view from a vantage point he can't see while sitting in his SUV across the street).

gaius• 13 years ago

From the headline, I assumed this would be about drone strike pilots demanding flight pay.

angersock• 13 years ago

For anyone curious about an example of this being done, check out this behind-the-scenes footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_711646...

They use a drone in lieu of the crazy camera crane and gantry thingies, and get some pretty awesome shots.

I suspect that drones are going to really transform the way we make low- to mid- budget shoots.

I'm loathe to allow the FAA more authority over the little guys--this sort of anti-drone stuff really will only impact hobbyists and makers. The rest of the folks, the ones who can actually profit off of mass surveillance and whatnot, the .gov's and BigCos, they are going to do it anyway.

modfodder2• 13 years ago

There's quite a few small companies and individuals out there making money flying drones for productions. I worked on a large production for an American car co. that used drones for product flyovers late last year (this was on a multi-million dollar shoot that could have easily afforded a crane or chopper). It's so comparatively cheap and easy. They will transform not only the low to mid range, they'll be used extensively on high end as well. The logistics favor a drone over hiring a helicopter or a huge crane on most occasions (although they won't work for everything).

aray4• 13 years ago

They already are, but the new nomenclature might be confusing people. RC-helicopter and RC-plane shoots aren't uncommon (with helicopters being far more prevalent), sometimes with first-person-view flying, which is what they're doing in the wired article as well.

The term 'drone' doesn't really have a clear meaning other than the pilot is not inside the vehicle. It doesn't refer to the formfactor (fixed wing / helicopter / multirotor) the flight controls (line-of-sight / FPV / autonomous) or even weight classifications.

0cool• 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UEJd8_7Nyw

Mithaldu• 13 years ago

Wow, if that's the guy talked about the in the article then i'm not surprised they're being legislated against. They're doing some really dangerous stuff there; like flying over a bridge with dense traffic on it, then swooping down between the lanes; or doing a high-speed approach on a traffic intersection with people on it, then accelerating towards a glass front building and pulling up with little time to spare.

modfodder2• 13 years ago

I wonder what happens if the IRS categorizes your filmmaking as a hobby as they can with documentary filmmakers? Does that cancel out the FAA's categorizing a filmmaker as a commercial interest (or vice versa)?

More a rhetorical question concerning stupid policies from two separate government agencies.

ref: http://www.indiewire.com/article/ida_issues_amicus_brief_on_...

acomjean• 13 years ago

I think there needs to be some regulations in place. As a photographer I love the idea of getting a drone and taking arial shots. The gps enabled, easy to fly, set to hover in place is very cool. but...

They can be dangerous and can fall out of the sky with disastrous and fatal results.

http://gothamist.com/2013/09/06/teen_killed_by_remote_contro...

ugexe2• 13 years ago

This is a stunt RC helicopter doing stunts, has carbon fiber blades, was being flown wrecklessly, etc.

njharman• 13 years ago

Which are all the types of things regulations regulate.

60years ago fatal crashes happened in cars without crumple zones, poor firewalls, and no over shoulder seatbelts, etc. Regulation has mandated changes in those areas.

mattfff3• 13 years ago

But similar (though not fatal, yet) incidents have happened with multirotors:

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/scary-hexa-crash-in-braz...

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/mikrokopter-drone-crash...

http://betabeat.com/2013/08/renegade-drone-crashes-into-groo...

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/222088/video-dr...

In the first, third, and last cases the vehicles pretty much crashed into people. Two appeared to be equipment failures. The first looked like a GPS failure, the latter was a motor failure. I have two unexplained equipment-related crashes with my large Cinestar hexarotor, which has been enough to make me decide to never fly near other people.

And while RC drivers like to downplay the "drone" aspect, many pilots are hopelessly dependent on GPS position hold, in which case the vehicle essentially IS a drone, and is flying autonomously. When that malfunctions, bad things happen.

vermontdevil• 13 years ago

I hope he prevails. There's room for commercialization of drones.

Remember the Internet was not allowed to engage in commerce which was understandable as it was in research development back then. Took an Act of Congress to move it along.

I can see this happening hopefully but within a reasonable regulatory framework. How reasonable remains to be seen.

aray4• 13 years ago

I hope we commercializes drones, but I also hope he is cited for endangering the public. Those videos are basically how-to's for what NOT to do with responsibly operating a civilian drone.

tzs• 13 years ago

One of the uses they mention for commercial drones is monitoring things on large farms.

If the drone takes off from the farm, lands on the farm, and in between stays within the boundary of the farm and stays low enough to not intrude on the airspace where manned planes can legally fly, is it still subject to FAA regulation?

aray4• 13 years ago

Depends on the airspace classification above the farm (affects your airspace and how tall it is). Also technically you can only fly it if you're an amateur, which (as a professional farmer/operator) wouldn't qualify.

Often these places are pretty lax though, and if you already have clearance to fly a private aircraft there you can just advise your ATC and go from there.

If you're concerned about that, you have to get a CoA, and then the language of the CoA itself will outline who you have to notify, where you can/can't fly and what altitudes.

ckvamme• 13 years ago

If it stays below 500ft, and is controlled by someone with line of sight (who is also the owner of the property, or has consent from the owner) then it is allowed under FAA reg.

mattfff3• 13 years ago

Nope, wrong, not if it's being used in commercial application. The FAA regs that exempt model aviation specifically restrict it to non-commercial activities. When you are in open air and are any distance from the ground, you are in FAA airspace.

headShrinker• 13 years ago

I'm a photographer and programmer in NYC. I have been building multicopters and flying them for the past two years. Now I'm starting to amass some more expensive camera equipment, gimbals and transmitters, which leads me to the question of were I can go with this professionally. Currently we hobbyists are legally prohibited from charging for aerial video or even still photography. The technology is getting to the point were when UAVs are setup and used properly are very stable, and the footage is second to none. Here is the best examples I have seen. http://vimeo.com/66036452

The recent NYC drone crash brings the major issues right to the surface; safety. Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse without regulation. I wish that weren't the case. A license that isn't to hard to get should be required within city limits.

All that said the next issue that comes up is privacy. It's too early to know how bad this issue will become. On top of all the technical hurdles to flying, there is no way around the fact that drones are noisy. Most of the time, I am flying a multicopter in public people come over and talk to me about them. After they get over the sheer amusement of watching it fly, one of the first things they want to express is the potential for this thing to violate their privacy. Ironically, the government is actively running an extensive spying program on them, but their fears seem targeted on little Timmy down the street flying out side their window. This is obviously irrational.

mattfff3• 13 years ago

Unfortunately the guy suing the FAA in this case has a pretty bad rep in the hobby, he's the same guy that was flying a delta-wing (same Ritewing platform discussed in the article) in a super busy helicopter corridor in NYC a couple years ago, while claiming that he had "notified the authorities". However, the only agency he failed to notify was in fact the only one with jurisdiction, the FAA. He seems hell-bent on being allowed to do whatever he wants to do, however reckless, which is going to cause long term harm to this industry and hobby.

I have a commercial-grade (several $k) multirotor designed for large cameras as well as two couple gopro-scale helis and fixed wing platforms, and I have to admit that based on some hardware failures (not pilot error, I can admit those) that I've experienced, I've gotten pretty leery of flying in some of the situations that people seem to want to use these most: sporting events, parades, concerts, weddings, etc. They simply aren't that reliable yet, and beyond that pilot skill is highly variable. Just because you can scrape together $1k to buy or build a multirotor doesn't mean you're fit to fly one anywhere near another human.

I've also flown full-scale aircraft, and while I tend to be suspicious of regulation, I do believe that some degree of oversight is necessary to do this safely, and that has been demonstrated in commercial aviation. Some type of demonstrated proficiency and equipment standards would go a long way towards making sure that this can be done safely. If we don't do something like that, I'm afraid that a few bad incidents are going to make this something that could become entirely illegal at any kind of small scale (i.e. nothing smaller than a Predator fielded by a well-connected corporation), which would be a terrible loss.

Privacy is a whole different issue, and something that I think has been blown out of proportion in comparison to the safety aspects, which are my main concern...

malandrew• 13 years ago

Out of curiosity, how many drone accidents are there per year that don't involve the drone pilot?

I have never heard of a single accident, yet everyone wants to regulate them heavily, even in situations where only the participants in their usage are at risk, like the boat video linked in that article.

They really only need to worry about defining privacy limitations. It should be okay to film in public spaces or private spaces where you are authorized to film.

Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies

Related Stories