

Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies - 0cool
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/drones-at-a-crossroads/

======
JshWright
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.

~~~
aray
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.

~~~
JshWright
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).

------
headShrinker
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](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.

------
vermontdevil
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.

~~~
aray
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.

------
modfodder
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_...](http://www.indiewire.com/article/ida_issues_amicus_brief_on_behalf_of_audited_documentary_filmmaker)

------
mattfff
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...

------
0cool
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UEJd8_7Nyw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UEJd8_7Nyw)

~~~
Mithaldu
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.

------
acomjean
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...](http://gothamist.com/2013/09/06/teen_killed_by_remote_control_chopp.php)

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

~~~
njharman
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.

~~~
ugexe
It was clarification for those who might think that accident was caused by
UAVs (as most of us think of them anyway), not a cry for no regulation.

------
malandrew
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.

------
angersock
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...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_711646&feature=iv&index=1&list=PL84DB158CAABE4E07&src_vid=rNm6qGwx5kI&v=3bCSxwZf4-k)

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.

~~~
modfodder
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).

------
tzs
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?

~~~
ckvamme
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.

~~~
mattfff
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.

------
negativity
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?

~~~
JshWright
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.

~~~
negativity
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...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/18/colorado-town-ponders-
drone-bounty)), 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.

~~~
alan_cx
You are right, take our fellow man out of the equation, and it all feels very
different, regardless off the reasons/excuses given.

This is also helps explain why drone attacks (missiles too) to kill
terrorists, and so on, are so hated and seen as cowardly. If such people are
killed like Bin Laden was, then that feels more acceptable than a drone
strike, because in that sort of scenario, there is a man on man thing. There
is a sort of honor to it.

I personally very much dislike US incursion in to foreign countries to kill
people. However, when OBL was killed, I did think, well at least men on the
ground got their hand dirty and took personal risk to do it. Much more honor
to that than some drone jockey sitting safely in a bunker thousands of miles
away risking nothing what so ever, like a kid playing some console game.

Something else. Many find it more irritating to be caught speeding by a speed
camera than a police man in a police car. Similar sort of thing.

Bottom line: electronics, robots and automated system are superior to us,
which is why they are used. Very simply, it is not fair. There is no sporting
chance for us second rate humans.

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

