You are quite right. But we will have to become used to with this problems as the drones, quadcoptoers are such a small device it will not be possible for the regulating authorities to keep an eye upon, even they are very easy to assemble for an electronic hobbyist. The new generation is also very much enthusiastic about these devices and it will be very though to monitor their experiments.
Do you want the drone to look inside your windown and take pictures of you and your family? Do you want to carsh into your window due to the software glitch or operator error? do you want your boss to check whether you are really sick?
Absolutely not, No one will like these kind of monitoring or disturbance. But is there any way of preventing it ?, I mean to say the availability of such product is very handy now, there are certain tiny cameras being sold online with quadcoprtor as an accessory. The accessibility will improve in coming days. And anyone can misuse this carrier for harmful activity as well. You said only someone will break in the window, but it is equally possible to carry explosives on these devices. I am not in support of this thing but I am not finding any way to prevent these. It will not be possible for governments as well to handle these tiny vehicles.
YOu are absolutely right...every idiot or terrorist can fly these devices now...here in Vancouver we just had some drones flying at the beach taking pictures...probably innocent but since this is the place that many movies are made (I just bumped into Pierce Brosnan the other day) I woudl not be surpised if drones will be chasing Holywood stars soon
I think this will lead towards finding some new areas in research on tracking these devices. But still I am wondering how government will be able to tackle this situation. As anyone from far approx distance 100 to 500 metres can control these devices so it is hard to figure out that who is the culprit?
The small plastic quadricopter drones that have become so popular have far more in common with model airplanes than with military style UAVs, and FAA regulations should recognize that fact. The whole point of these things is low altitude aerial photography, and I fail to understand how air traffic safety is affected by the images being of a commercial nature rather than not for profit.
As an EE, Instrument Pilot and R/C pilot and say with confidence that the R/C community already has restrictions that has proven to be reasonable for both enthusiasts and the general public we R/C pilots have a good safety record overall that already addresses proximity to full size aviation. The FAA is in communication and discussion with the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics), a division of the NAA, to understand the issues. The experimentation afforded the model community needs to continue, but with reasonable oversight for safety and privacy. I think the FAA along with the AMA can deliver it and has so far since 1936.
With all due respect I seriously doubt that the safety is maintained...we just had a drone running into landing plane at YVR few days ago, this is not the first time...I think we are just waiting for the first plane going down before this issue is treated properly by government
Progress is never accompanied by zero risk. Plane crashes still happen, would you disagree that the procedures the US has are Better than the rest of the world? As long as humans are involved, rules will involve compromise.
The news articles I saw from earlier this month didn't indicate a collision, just someone ILLEGALLY flying around YVR. In any case, that person is already breaking the law, so passing more laws and restrictions on law-abiding citizens won't affect criminals' behavior.
The vast majority of hobbyists want to operate in an area free of obstacles to reduce the chance of collision. Let's not punish them. If there are gaps in the law that allows dangerous activity or privacy violation, then address those with specific prohibitions on actions and intent, and not broad outright bans.
Completely agree. Within the hobbyist community there is typically a very well regulated operated environment. It's idiots who purchase these camera drones who have no respect for the rules or common sense that involve model aircraft operation. You would never dream to fly your model in or around a crowded environment. Yes it's been done before and unfortunately accidents do occur (deaths have resulted from errant flying). I cringe every time I see or hear of some idiot flying his drone over a crowd.
Drones get a bad rap from the bad flyers who operate them. You cannot regulate stupidity but the govt. is certainly going to try.
That is the whole point of my rap...the idots will buy drones with cameras for few hundreds bucks and fly them any way they wish, collect pics, post them on Internet etc...that is largely legal here in Canada...what are you going to do if Canada starts sending hundreds of these drones across the border, will you be using anti-drone missiles?
Regulation of some sort is necessary, just to take care of the drone operators with no common sense. Case in point, I'm a firefighter and was recently working a 4000 acre fire utilizing many aircraft. A stupid drone operator was flying around this fire taking photos, almost shutting down the firefighting aircraft (until the drone operator was located and terminated).
There are a few things that need some clarification. The first is the separation of privacy of and the actual device carrying the camera. The FAA most likely will not be tasked with dealing with the privacy issue. In fact, already many laws that are already in place about filming individuals no matter the method of doing it.
The second needed clarification is that the FAA currently does not have any regulations in place for these types of vehicles. The FAA released in 2007 a policy statement, though this policy statement has not gone through the necessary notice for proposed rule making that is required to create a regulation. This very detail has been the basis for two court cases that have found against the FAA.
This current issue is once again an attempt by the FAA to do an end around the process by issuing an interpretation to how they are going to apply the law that was passed in 2012 by congress and the wording about model aircraft. The unfortunate part about this new interpretation is that in effect it will be an attempt to create regulations as this new imterpretation will cover activities that previously the FAA exempted themselves from regulating. Some of the activities that would potentially be considered banned are RC shows where cash prizes are awarded.
The last issue that is in play is what makes a commercial operation. Carying passengers or cargo for pay (more than the actual cost required to opperate the aircraft such as fuel, landing fees, etc) is considered commercial. With regards to photography flights, one can find very inconsistent interpretations even with the FAA itself. The current interpretation is still very nebulous in that if the photography is incedental to the flight, then a non commercial pilot can conduct this flight. Despit this, there are various scenarios in which it can be required even if the pilot is not receiving compensation for the flight.
This lack of clarity for manned flight is now boiling over into the unmanned space. It gets further confused by the fact that this is technology that a small boy working a summer job for a few weeks can own one of these devices. More over, the lack of clarity seems to be centered around even for the manned flights that this is even a safety issue (photography from an aircraft). It seems more that the FAA was not as focused about the pay issue, but that a pilot may use this to skirt the commercial rules and start carrying passengers, yet not be compensated for carrying passengers, but for photography. This does not apply to an unmanned vehicle.
The worst part, though is that because the FAA has not yet issued legal regulations yet beyond interpretations, and email opinions, you have created confusion, and possibly a worse situation (more lives could be lost by not having search and rescue groups able to use this tech for one example). The FAA would be best to approach this in a stepped fashion and whin a few months release regulation on small craft. Then focus on the much larger craft.
NASA's Orion Flight Software Production Systems Manager Darrel G. Raines joins Planet Analog Editor Steve Taranovich and Embedded.com Editor Max Maxfield to talk about embedded flight software used in Orion Spacecraft, part of NASA's Mars mission. Live radio show and live chat. Get your questions ready.
Brought to you by