
Groundbreaking drone coverage of tornado damage piques ire of FAA - nkurz
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0430/Groundbreaking-drone-coverage-of-tornado-damage-piques-ire-of-FAA-video
======
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.

~~~
hrktb
Genuine question, but does it change much compared to a wild bird ? Yhey don't
respect regulations nor space rules either, and I hope it's OK. If we lump
drones in the same category shouldn't it be OK as well ?

~~~
skriticos2
"Most accidents occur when the bird hits the windscreen or flies into the
engines. These cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million
within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial
aircraft worldwide."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike)

Relatively few fatalities for humans, but very high cost. And they are not
made of metal or durable plastics. They are also less likely to fall onto your
head with rapidly rotating blades due to technical failure.

------
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](http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html)

~~~
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.

~~~
markdown
> That doesn't really make sense

Capitalism, man. Without a financial incentive, you dramatically reduce the
use of drones. Approve commercial usage and you'll have dozens of drones
flying around after every celebrity and politician everywhere they go.

Businesses will have drones hovering outside their doors all day with CCTV.
Intersections and major roads will have a few drones above them monitoring
traffic.

How about a reality show based on filming what goes on in backyards in suburbs
all over the country. "Oooh look a pool party... lets hover around streaming
this over the internet, there's sure to be some nudity or a drunk fight
eventually".

~~~
bri3d
I agree that without regulation, "approved" commercial drone usage could
spiral out of control into the drone-dystopia you suggest.

I'm just amused by the the bizarre nature of the current regulation: amateurs
regularly flaunt the supposed current guidelines (as they have been for 20+
years) and the FAA turns a blind eye until a single dollar is passed.

This kind of psuedo-regulation makes little sense and results in all kinds of
hilarious (and equally illegal) workarounds. I once met a commercial drone
operator who sold footage for TV by posting it anonymously on random video-
upload sites, having the show producers "find" it, and then taking a kickback
somewhere else for an "unrelated" job.

------
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/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/us/drone-pilot-case-faa/) Full decision:
[http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf](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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes) )
just after a flood : [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x112qvt_inondations-a-
lourd...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x112qvt_inondations-a-lourdes-les-
degats-vus-du-ciel-grace-au-drone-bfmtv-20-06_news)

~~~
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...](http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/02/14/un-lyceen-
poursuivi-pour-avoir-filme-nancy-a-l-aide-d-un-drone_4366386_3224.html)

then got a job to do precisely that from the new mayor:

[http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/02/19/le-maire-
de...](http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/02/19/le-maire-de-nancy-
propose-un-travail-au-lyceen-qui-avait-filme-la-ville-avec-un-
drone_4369602_3224.html)

------
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.

~~~
wahsd
You don't know the federal government very well then. It is _exactly_ why they
do it. It is the sole reason why our government is deemed to have been
"productive" by the number of laws it passes. Because the government is not a
market governed by scarcity, make work and busy work is exactly what keeps it
busy and speciously relevant and necessary.

