Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#21

Post by nathancahill »

6stringmerc wrote: post #16
kawsper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fly my quadcopter in the UK. It would be nice to have an app that told me about the airspace I was in based on my current position. However, right now I am not flying higher than 10 meters from the ground.

Round up a team and put it in the ApplyHN sector - that could be a really useful, pay-for-app & updates type service. Definitely has value. The target market should be able to see the cost-benefit I presume. Good thinking!

Classic HN. Jumping from someone's annoyance to "create a startup" that "definitely has value" without knowing anything about the space.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#22

Post by cpncrunch »

nitrogen wrote: post #13
cpncrunch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones. >Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there. We're talking about voluntary geo…

We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves. Much as I like the idea of keeping drones away from planes, just look at how governments have abused other "voluntary" restriction systems. For example, ISPs install filters for ostensibly noble causes, then governments commandeer them for more questionable uses.

Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

Which governments of civilized, democratic countries have commandeered ISP's filters for questionable uses? If you're talking about the UK porn filter, it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it.

Even if it were a law, I don't see the issue that you are arguing. You're essentially saying "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument.

Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#23

Post by amelius »

cpncrunch wrote: post #8
gus_massa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look so easy. First you must put a GPS in each device, I think the cheaper drones don't have one. Also, the forbidden areas may vary, so they have to provide a way to update it.

>First you must put a GPS in each device A gps costs under $1 today: http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/gps-chip-price.html >Also, the forbidden areas may vary It's mostly airports that we need to worry about, and they don't tend to change much. Sure, TMA boundaries might vary occasionally, but that's not really much of a worry, because most drones won't be up at 1000+ ft.

What about its weight?

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#24

Post by cpncrunch »

Zigurd wrote: post #11
cpncrunch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away. Yes, it's definitely a good idea that will stop casual drone users from being somewhere they shouldn't be flying. Here is a good exam…

As soon as drones are required to have geofencing, you will find they become useless for monitoring the police, factory farms, pollution, "black" sites, etc. Humans die because of those things, while no practical benefit to aviation safety has been proven. And yeah, controlled airspace has been used to prevent monitoring of police, in Ferguson, for example.

Another slippery slope argument. We're talking purely about controlled airspace here. Those things you mention have never been controlled airspace.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#26

Post by Splines »

HorizonXP wrote: post #2

What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.

There's a danger to this though; if drone pilots are universally expected to be warned when they fly in dangerous areas, then pilots will start flying "to the edge" and expect the technology to always keep them in line. I would be surprised if restricted areas were stable enough that drones could store a database of no-go areas and keep it up to date easily.

It would be more straightforward to set clear policy and provide a way for drone pilots to know where not to fly (e.g., provide an online map and require altitude telemetry to the controller at all times). Include a link to this information with every drone purchase.

My guess of what will happen if we go down the GPS route: Some incident with a drone will occur, and the pilot will say something like "the drone didn't warn me that I was in a restricted area".

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#27

Post by k-mcgrady »

Slightly misleading headline. Basically they haven't confirmed it's a drone so they can't rule anything out, or as he puts it "it could have been a plastic bag or something". They don't seem to have any evidence suggesting it's a plastic bag and not a drone (and vice versa).

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#28

Post by deckar01 »

HorizonXP wrote: post #2

What a level headed response by the transport minister. I love that he acknowledges that geofencing rules will easily be circumvented. That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.

DJI products quite effectively indicate and restrict access to no fly zones. My controller starts to beep if I get within a few hundred feet of a border to a no fly zone. I haven't tested it, but I think it is supposed to come home and land if you somehow get into a no fly zone.

That said, 1,700ft is so high, no fly zones don't really mean much anymore.

Re: Drone believed to have hit British Airways flight 'may have been a plastic bag'

#29

Post by mindslight »

cpncrunch wrote: post #10
Zigurd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geofencing has a downside, too. While you might think it enhances aviation safety, it may not do so at all. Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that, when you read about a "possible drone strike" always bet against it. Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.

>Planes spend so little time within flying/control range of commonplace drones that It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones. >Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there. We're talking about voluntary geo…

> We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.

That's not "voluntary" - the manufacturers are not the owners/operators of the drones.

Post reply on HN