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

~~~
bigmattystyles
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.

~~~
abakker
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.

~~~
Buttons840
I once had the exhaust pipe before my catalytic converter on my car fall out
due to a bump and some rust that had been building up. My car suddenly became
very very loud, louder than I had ever realized it could be. I was quite
embarrassed while driving the car home, and soon got it fixed. It wasn't
especially expensive to fix. If that happened in California I might get a
$1000 ticket? Or is the large ticket only for intentionally loud and illegal
exhausts.

~~~
morganvachon
I think in your specific case it would be up to the officer's discretion if
you were pulled over for it. About 20 years ago I worked the night shift at a
warehouse and my car's passenger side headlight went out on my way to work. I
had time to stop at a parts dealer before they closed and picked up a new
headlight, but I didn't have time to install it so I chucked it in the back
seat and drove on to my job. I was pulled over right before pulling into work,
and the trooper was reading me the riot act over the light. When I could get a
word in I explained to him that it went out on me while driving, and I stopped
to get one and planned to install it on my lunch break. I pointed to it in the
back seat and showed him my receipt. He seemed pissed that his ranting was not
necessary, but he didn't write me a ticket and instructed me to definitely
install it that night because he'd be waiting for me on my trip home.

Perhaps I was lucky to get a cop who wasn't so much of an asshole that he'd
write me a ticket despite seeing my best intentions to deal with a situation
that could happen to anyone. Then again, I could have been pulled over by a
guy who would have started off nice and thanked me for being conscientious
enough to stop for the part that night.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>I think in your specific case it would be up to the officer's discretion if
you were pulled over for it

So people that don't make a good impression get screwed out of a grand they
probably don't have. Relying on the benevolence of police is not going to work
out well for average people in the long run.

------
ProfessorLayton
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...](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170005870.pdf)

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

~~~
Forge36
It's like a bee. You know its there, you can barely hear it. I can see why
people get annoyed by them

~~~
kuhhk
Not really. I have a drone, and if it's high enough, I can't hear it, and have
trouble even seeing it.

------
jMyles
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.

~~~
flyinglizard
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
>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.

------
asynchronous13
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.

~~~
cronix
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8)

~~~
asynchronous13
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...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/27/alphabet-quiet-wing-delivery-
drones/)

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

~~~
cronix
> Is there anything that can be done via drone that can't be done with a cell
> phone or a go pro?

Not necessarily if you're talking about just one, but there is when you have
tens of thousands of them compiling the data. Remember, these are companies
like amazon, who are deploying Rekognition face recognition systems to law
enforcement in cities (as well as Ring doorbell cameras). This will
additionally give them that capability from the air now, on a movable
platform.

------
drusepth
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?

~~~
asynchronous13
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.

~~~
reaperducer
_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.

~~~
asynchronous13
This was a very polite version of what an FAA employee told me.

~~~
lovemenot
and if she'd told you it was all the fault of blacks / gays whatever ?

------
testplzignore
> 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?

~~~
stult
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
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?

------
kozikow
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.

------
todd3834
> 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?

~~~
hashkb
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.

~~~
ricardobeat
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.

~~~
hashkb
The bullet, falling from the same height as a crashing drone, is at least as
lethal if it strikes a human. There is no "safe weight" for a falling
object... but there may be a "safe momentum".

~~~
ricardobeat
The proposed flying zone for drones like these is between 60-120m height.
Seems like a bullet must travel at least 62m/s to penetrate human skin [1],
for which you need a height of at least ~200m [2]. So even dropping a bullet
from one the delivery drones would not carry a high risk of fatal injuries.

That, and P=MV, momentum/energy increases proportionally to mass. A 'safe
weight' can be defined if the altitude is known.

[1] [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-
bull...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bullets-kill-
you.html)

[2]
[https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mofall.html](https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mofall.html)

------
stcredzero
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?

~~~
reaperducer
_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.

~~~
asynchronous13
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.

~~~
avar
Why would it need to be tested in court? It falls under the well-established
doctrine that the FAA / EASA etc. is allowed to regulate air traffic.

You'll be able to fly your drone at whatever altitude they tell you you're
allowed to fly at.

If they didn't get to decide by fiat you could just make up your own rules and
seek to sort them out in court. E.g. "no I don't feel like following the FAA
rules on airline safety, I'll just make my own airliner & airline and make my
own rules".

~~~
asynchronous13
> Why would it need to be tested in court?

Because the law is not clear as it is currently written. On one hand, the
minimum safe altitude to operate an aircraft is 500ft. So it's pretty clear
that anything above 500ft is considered a public thoroughfare.

The FAA claims to own and regulate all US airspace down to ground level. The
FAA also says that drones must be operated below 400ft (clearly an effort to
keep drones and manned aircraft safely separated). If we embrace this version
of the law, then drones can operate from 0ft to 400ft with impunity over
private land without any legal repercussions.

On the other hand, it is established law that a property owner is entitled to
the full enjoyment of their property. In a famous case, United States vs
Causby, military bombers were flying at an altitude of 83ft over Causby's
house and chicken farm. The courts sided with Causby and established a
precedent that a landowner does own some portion of the airspace over their
land. However, it did not establish a specific altitude.

A bomber at 83ft was deemed to infringe on private property rights, but should
a small drone at 83ft be judged in the same way? It's not clearly defined in
law right now, that's why it needs to be tested in court. Or alternatively,
the legislature needs to adjust the laws to make it clear.

~~~
avar
That's really interesting. As the Wikipedia article notes[1] quoting the
decision while the court didn't hold property rights at as specific altitude,
in their language they referred to the height of buildings, trees etc.:

> "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have
> exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.
> Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and
> even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in
> a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not
> material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface
> but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a
> more conventional entry upon it."

But it's not clear to me that this would apply to drones for a couple of
reasons:

1\. The question of whether something is considered an easement or not doesn't
apply for the drone question. I.e. in the 1946 case bombers were flying by at
83 ft so "buildings could not be erected". Whereas today if if drones were
flying past your house at 83 ft and you built a 100 ft building they'd just
need to fly over or around it.

2\. In the 1946 case the overflights themselves caused enough of a disruption
to farming from noise etc. that the farmer went out of business, so the
takings clause was invoked. It's unlikely that'll ever become an issue with
drones, general noise regulation will handle those sorts of cases.

Also, surely there's lots of post-1946 cases on this matter due to the build-
outs of airports and growing class B airspace, or has that been handled
entirely by buying out property and zoning regulations?

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holdin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holding)

~~~
asynchronous13
You're right that there are aspects of the case that would not apply to a
current-day situation. The takings clause can only apply to the US Government,
for example. But the main takeaway that I believe _would_ apply is that a
property owner effectively owns the airspace up to some altitude X ft.

The way I see it is that the property owner should be entitled to exclusive
use from 0ft to Xft. (Of course, the land owner can always give permission for
lower flights if they so choose.) And drones should be able to legally
traverse from Xft to 400ft.

It would be great if a law would establish what X is. Unfortunately, I think
it's more likely that someone will fly a drone over private land at 150ft, the
land owner will shoot it down, and the ensuing lawsuit will set a precedent.

------
peterburkimsher
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.

~~~
brokenmachine
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."

------
tareqak
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
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.

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

------
soundpuppy
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.

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

~~~
gpm
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
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.

------
codedokode
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?

~~~
jstplanecurious
>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...](https://www.google.com/search?q=why+don't+quadcopters+have+safety+cages)
...

... 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](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.

~~~
asynchronous13
> 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.

~~~
leetcrew
it's actually worse than that. in addition to the weight penalty, prop guards
decrease the performance of the rotors and make the aircraft a bit less
stable.

------
hashkb
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?

~~~
vokep
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

~~~
hashkb
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.

~~~
the_reformation
An FAA regulation isn't going to stop a domestic terrorist.

~~~
Retra
When you take something from "permitted" to "restricted", you turn actions
from "normal" to "suspicious", and that definitely acts as a signal for
observers and a deterrent.

The FAA requires airline doors to be secured. Why would you assume that does
_nothing_ to stop a domestic terrorist? I can't imagine why you'd even say
such a thing.

