People don't have to respect the laws at first but the laws are necessary to prosecute them and they'll respect them eventually, just like with driving regulations. It's not just to prevent stupidity either, experienced operators have accidents like anyone else and the fewer the better.
A simple band around the blade tips wouldn't make it too heavy to fly and I think this regulation should apply to airplane propellers, helicopters and boats. Drones can work just fine inside a full cage:
A basic protection frame isn't much to add. The Parrot drone is already designed this way and can happily bang into walls and keep going.
Not everyone is going to be aware of the danger, especially when people keep going around lying to everyone about how safe they are and then people or animals get hit and have lifelong injuries. Regulations prevent dangerous situations before they happen so the responsible thing to do is to add basic protection first. When you go to a country with lots of disease you get an inoculation before you go, you don't wait until you have a life-threatening illness to do something about it.
Yes, small fragile cages work with tiny toys that can fly for 2 minutes. Scale it up to even a DJI sized quad and you have a problem.
About the safety... do you know anyone personally that has been really hurt by a drone? Not the one in ten million that the news reports on... a real life person that you know that has been hurt by one of these millions of drones out there that are so dangerous?
The bigger drones would be the country with the diseases. If you go there, you need to be protected and registered. Going to France doesn't require any shots.
And again, there are already laws that deal with privacy, liability and responsibility. Why would making more laws work to make these safer? You can not outlaw stupid!
"All of this tech that has been available and flying for decades is now all of a sudden dangerous to the world. Not really."
Actually these aren't your grandmothers R/C aircraft at all. With GPS and autonomous flight control they're far more sophisticated with, for instance, no need at all to maintain line of sight for control purposes: these things can and will (in the case of loss of signal for instance) fly themselves. In the case of loss of signal they can be set to return to their start point autonomously. try that with a joystick R/C and see what happens.... Others have a "no fly zone" list loaded so they can detect when they're about to enter or launch into, say, an FAA restricted space such as around a major airport. No R/C has that sort of capability.
So they are actually safer then yes?
And yes, R/C has had this for more than a decade. They didn't just invent these things from scratch you know. GPS wasn't invented last year. It's just that the tech is getting smaller and smaller, and cheaper and cheaper.
Yes, small fragile cages work with tiny toys that can fly for 2 minutes. Scale it up to even a DJI sized quad and you have a problem.
About the safety... do you know anyone personally that has been really hurt by a drone?
I don't know anyone personally, but drones have been knocking turbans off terrorists for years...
And yes, R/C has had this for more than a decade. They didn't just invent these things from scratch you know. GPS wasn't invented last year. It's just that the tech is getting smaller and smaller, and cheaper and cheaper.
Radio/Controlled specifically means NOT autonomous so the central feature of these newer aircraft was not present "for decades" on those old style model planes.
Radio/Controlled specifically means NOT autonomous so the central feature of these newer aircraft was not present "for decades" on those old style model planes.
Those are the first things that get taken off sadly... and they are not a full cage and do not protect from above.
Actually something like a full rotor cover would be a godsend to drone ops. The biggest cause of crashes I see with students is hitting trees with the rotors trying to get the foliage in the shot. But how to get full protection without disrupting the airflow... hmmmm. I'm actually working on that one.
You know that 95% of the time the quadcopter is in the air away from anyone or anything. So no danger to people or pets except when landing. Maybe be more careful when landing? Can we legislate that?
It was just very expensive and very technically challenging to do. Of course the government has been doing it since at least the 1950's.
Just because today they are smaller, lighter, and more accurate doesn't mean it's more of a danger, it means the opposite in fact.
Why focus on "danger"? I haven't so either a red herring or your own bugaboo.
While "Um, remote control airplanes (and helicopters) have been around for decades." (from you) Which are most certainly NOT the type of aircraft the autonomous drones being discussed now are, are they?.
Why focus on "danger"? I haven't so either a red herring or your own bugaboo.
While "Um, remote control airplanes (and helicopters) have been around for decades." (from you) Which are most certainly NOT the type of aircraft the autonomous drones being discussed now are, are they?.
These are the same things that we have had for, yes, decades. Putting in new electronics doesn't change the category of flying craft. And to say that these drones are not remotely controlled is flat out wrong. Amazon can talk to and control their drones from a distance, or remotely. Sure they can do some things autonomously, but they are still R/C aircraft (which stands for radio controlled).
The dangers to which I refute and rebut are to those saying that we ban these drones. You don't see all of the people talking about wounding animals and crashing into people?
Comments
People don't have to respect the laws at first but the laws are necessary to prosecute them and they'll respect them eventually, just like with driving regulations. It's not just to prevent stupidity either, experienced operators have accidents like anyone else and the fewer the better.
A simple band around the blade tips wouldn't make it too heavy to fly and I think this regulation should apply to airplane propellers, helicopters and boats. Drones can work just fine inside a full cage:
A basic protection frame isn't much to add. The Parrot drone is already designed this way and can happily bang into walls and keep going.
Not everyone is going to be aware of the danger, especially when people keep going around lying to everyone about how safe they are and then people or animals get hit and have lifelong injuries. Regulations prevent dangerous situations before they happen so the responsible thing to do is to add basic protection first. When you go to a country with lots of disease you get an inoculation before you go, you don't wait until you have a life-threatening illness to do something about it.
Yes, small fragile cages work with tiny toys that can fly for 2 minutes. Scale it up to even a DJI sized quad and you have a problem.
About the safety... do you know anyone personally that has been really hurt by a drone? Not the one in ten million that the news reports on... a real life person that you know that has been hurt by one of these millions of drones out there that are so dangerous?
The bigger drones would be the country with the diseases. If you go there, you need to be protected and registered. Going to France doesn't require any shots.
And again, there are already laws that deal with privacy, liability and responsibility. Why would making more laws work to make these safer? You can not outlaw stupid!
"All of this tech that has been available and flying for decades is now all of a sudden dangerous to the world. Not really."
Actually these aren't your grandmothers R/C aircraft at all. With GPS and autonomous flight control they're far more sophisticated with, for instance, no need at all to maintain line of sight for control purposes: these things can and will (in the case of loss of signal for instance) fly themselves. In the case of loss of signal they can be set to return to their start point autonomously. try that with a joystick R/C and see what happens.... Others have a "no fly zone" list loaded so they can detect when they're about to enter or launch into, say, an FAA restricted space such as around a major airport. No R/C has that sort of capability.
So they are actually safer then yes?
And yes, R/C has had this for more than a decade. They didn't just invent these things from scratch you know. GPS wasn't invented last year. It's just that the tech is getting smaller and smaller, and cheaper and cheaper.
But, but, but, you've been double dog dared... no one can ignore a double dog dare. It just isn't done.
I don't know anyone personally, but drones have been knocking turbans off terrorists for years...
So they are actually safer then yes?
And yes, R/C has had this for more than a decade. They didn't just invent these things from scratch you know. GPS wasn't invented last year. It's just that the tech is getting smaller and smaller, and cheaper and cheaper.
Radio/Controlled specifically means NOT autonomous so the central feature of these newer aircraft was not present "for decades" on those old style model planes.
Radio/Controlled specifically means NOT autonomous so the central feature of these newer aircraft was not present "for decades" on those old style model planes.
Here's a guy that did his thesis on making one in 2005... http://staff.ee.sun.ac.za/ikpeddle/files/UAV/MScThesis_ikpeddle.pdf
Are you saying he invented all of the stuff he used in his project? No, it's been around for decades.
Here's one from 1995: https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~elkaim/Documents/sysid_aircraft.pdf
How about a commercially available one in 1987: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2440/
It was just very expensive and very technically challenging to do. Of course the government has been doing it since at least the 1950's.
Just because today they are smaller, lighter, and more accurate doesn't mean it's more of a danger, it means the opposite in fact.
http://store.dji.com/product/phantom-3-propeller-guard
The only problem is they aren't mandatory yet.
http://store.dji.com/product/phantom-3-propeller-guard
The only problem is they aren't mandatory yet.
Those are the first things that get taken off sadly... and they are not a full cage and do not protect from above.
Actually something like a full rotor cover would be a godsend to drone ops. The biggest cause of crashes I see with students is hitting trees with the rotors trying to get the foliage in the shot. But how to get full protection without disrupting the airflow... hmmmm. I'm actually working on that one.
You know that 95% of the time the quadcopter is in the air away from anyone or anything. So no danger to people or pets except when landing. Maybe be more careful when landing? Can we legislate that?
Here's a guy that did his thesis on making one in 2005... http://staff.ee.sun.ac.za/ikpeddle/files/UAV/MScThesis_ikpeddle.pdf
Are you saying he invented all of the stuff he used in his project? No, it's been around for decades.
Here's one from 1995: https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~elkaim/Documents/sysid_aircraft.pdf
How about a commercially available one in 1987: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2440/
It was just very expensive and very technically challenging to do. Of course the government has been doing it since at least the 1950's.
Just because today they are smaller, lighter, and more accurate doesn't mean it's more of a danger, it means the opposite in fact.
Why focus on "danger"? I haven't so either a red herring or your own bugaboo.
While "Um, remote control airplanes (and helicopters) have been around for decades." (from you) Which are most certainly NOT the type of aircraft the autonomous drones being discussed now are, are they?.
Why focus on "danger"? I haven't so either a red herring or your own bugaboo.
While "Um, remote control airplanes (and helicopters) have been around for decades." (from you) Which are most certainly NOT the type of aircraft the autonomous drones being discussed now are, are they?.
These are the same things that we have had for, yes, decades. Putting in new electronics doesn't change the category of flying craft. And to say that these drones are not remotely controlled is flat out wrong. Amazon can talk to and control their drones from a distance, or remotely. Sure they can do some things autonomously, but they are still R/C aircraft (which stands for radio controlled).
The dangers to which I refute and rebut are to those saying that we ban these drones. You don't see all of the people talking about wounding animals and crashing into people?