FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night • Hacker News Board

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#281

Post by Phlarp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

Accujack wrote: post #277

Phlarp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even further than this, the type of camera found on most drones is quite terrible for detailed surveillance work. Even if it does have a "high definition" camera recording to local storage these are Gopro style lenses with massive FOV, fisheye distortion and calibrated to handle a very wide range of light exposure up to and including direct sun. Shooting meaningful video through a window is a joke at best. As you've…

So all those government types using technologies like "gorgon stare" from aircraft and other aerial platforms aren't consequential?

Gorgon Stare is, to my understanding, using much larger fixed wing aircraft capable of carrying and stabilizing the added weight of a telephoto lens. Glass and mirrors are the key for imaging; multirotor UAVs have very limited payload lifting capabilities and even if they can produce the required thrust, an offset center of gravity caused by large lenses or mirrors slung below the rotors can have profound effects on their agility, speed, and flight time. Gorgon Stare as a program appears to be calibrated towards ID and tracking of vehicle sized targets across an urban landscape; this discussion is about the unrealistic perception that 250g-1kg quadcopters are somehow desirable for perverts. Neither consumer multi-rotors nor military reaper/predators are particularly stealthy surveillance options since anybody close enough to spy on is going to be well aware of the aircrafts presence. 10 foot mirrors in low earth orbit tend to be the tool of choice for serious spies.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#282

Post by Phlarp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #126

bluescrn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to spy on somebody, you don’t use a noisy buzzing drone right outside a window, or hovering in an otherwise empty sky. Even something as crude as a smartphone on a stick could be more covert. Surprised that even tech enthusiasts are often so fearful of drones while not worried about the hundreds of cameras already filming their activities in most public places.

It's not about the public spaces, it's about private spaces. In the scenario I wrote about above, every house in the neighborhood has a seven-foot-tall cinderblock wall around it. The guy was flying over these walls to look in the people's first-floor windows from their backyards. A cell phone on a stick isn't a problem in that scenario.

Selfie sticks on subway trains present a far bigger privacy risk than fish-eye lensed sport-cams strapped to a flying lawnmower.

Re: FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at night

#283

Post by labawi » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 12:35 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #269

labawi wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as they are carrying less people than 737-MAX, I think they will be fine with less redundancy. They should be safe, so they don't fall on people etc, but that is a separate issue.

All it takes is for a single IMU failure to fall on people. Two IMUs doesn't help because you don't know which one is right. With three you can vote out the 1/3 failing IMU and issue a warning to land immediately. Same for GPS and everything else.

Yet even MAX didn't have triple redundancy of all sensors, and I don't think it is customary to have triple redundancy for all sensors in pretty much any plane.

Some things are more or less important, and even insignificant for safe landing. Triple redundant sensors won't save you from programming errors, birds or cables in rotors, batteries bursting into flames which is still more likely to cause a crash than your only camera or microphone failing - probably even a GPS failure, as long as you have a working IMU.