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

U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#191

Post by drb91 »

flyinglizard wrote: post #173
jMyles wrote: post #67

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…

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.

> It sounds quite stressful.

So does being shot by police.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#192

Post by bigmattystyles »

crysin wrote: post #184
abakker wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what happens if a headlight or turn signal goes out while you're in the middle of your drive? Do you immediately pull over and call a tow to avoid having a officer pull you over and slap you with a 1k ticket because your light bulb decided to go bad right then? What about if a rear break light goes out, only way to usually know about those ones is if someone alerts you to it.

I dont think he meant the fix it tickets for everything, just for purposely loud vehicles.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#193

Post by jMyles »

flyinglizard wrote: post #173
jMyles wrote: post #67

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…

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.

More stressful than having colleagues whose power has corrupted them and knowing that nobody will believe you (or worse, that you'll be the target of reprisal) if you report them?

I think that taking the reporting part of police abuse out of the hands of police (ie, by ensuring that bodycams are a secondary viewport, while overhead observation by ordinary, independent persons is primary) will make the job less stressful, not more.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#194

Post by breatheoften »

swebs wrote: post #175
breatheoften wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harley’s are terrible motorcycles with severe safety compromising design flaws made for stylistic reasons — the argument that they should be made loud for real safety reasons employs deeply flawed reasoning. I rode a (non Harley, well engineered) motorcycle for years and always thought the claim that you needed to make your bike loud to enhance perception was bollocks. The right answer is to always ride with the awar…

By that logic, wearing a helmet is also "deeply flawed reasoning"

I don’t think this is true at all — helmets are very useful safety equipment when motorcycle riding. Protection from bugs and airborne rocks is very real — I had some rides where I had to pull over and clean my helmet visor to see through all the grasshopper guts I’d hit — flying objects will hit you and very likely cause an accident or at least a lot of discomfort if you have no face protection. Helmets are worth it on those points alone even if you discard the (very real, very substantiated) potential to turn fatal impacts into survivable impacts.

That said — wearing a helmet can cause one to take more risks out of a belief in greater survivability odds. On the track in full safety gear — the odds of crash survival really can be high enough to justify the extra risk taking mentality — loud pipes don’t boost survivability to anything remotely the same degree as helmets — in my opinion it’s very likely that someone who genuinely (and mistakenly) believes their loud pipes make them more perceivable will allow that belief to influence their actions and be very likely to drive less defensely.

On the general topic of helmets increasing risk taking — I actually do think this belief can lead to meaningful increase in chance of mistakes in other contexts. I’m an avid rock climber — a very small percentage of climbers always wear a helmet but most only wear one when doing climbs with significant amount of loose rock. The main safety use of a helmet when climbing is protection from falling rocks or other objects — there are some rare circumstances when a helmet could protect you when you fall but those are quite unusual — generally only happen when you get flipped upside which usually only happens when you mismanage the rope position. It’s _possible_ the helmet could help protect from a climbing fall but much better protection is to correctly manage rope position which is necessary, typically straightforward, and also something you are unlikely to do wrong when climbing at your level. If you put a helmet on and suddenly feel “able” to take more risks when climbing you are making a big mistake — the very marginal extra fall safety of the helmet is not worth increasing your risk taking at all — but it can often be hard to avoid increase to risk taking even when you are aware the increase is not justified. In my opinion, the helmet is not worth making this trade off (except in areas with lots of risk of rockfall or dropped gear from parties above).

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#195

Post by asynchronous13 »

avar wrote: post #123
asynchronous13 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#196

Post by LinuxBender »

abakker wrote: post #114
bigmattystyles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Don't automatically pay it. Go to court and ask the county clerk to speak to a judge to get the fine waived. Depending on your county, this may or may not work, but you should always do this first. In many cases, the clerk on behalf of the judge will waive it for you and require you to pay a small processing fee.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#197

Post by avar »

asynchronous13 wrote: post #195
avar wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 drone…

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...

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#198

Post by odorousrex »

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #111
jstplanecurious wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought iancmceachern asked a really good question. I was curious if it could work even theoretically. I read the Wikipedia article on Active Noise Control. The third paragraph under Explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control#Explanati... mentions that if it's at the source, it needs to be just as loud as the source (as opposed to being by the ear, in which case even a whisper might be enough).…

Not impossible, just impractical unless silence is incredibly important. If you want a quiet helicopter then you do what you can to reduce the noise signiture, then you might consider destructive interference. You wouldn’t use speakers, but that’s not the only way to produce a noise. In fact a clever country might even figure out how to use an arrangement of blades and fans designed to produce noise in such a way tha…

Like the Stealth Black Hawk helicopters that were used in the Osama Bin Laden raid!

(There existence is still not officially acknowledged of course, but many pictures exist.)

I was very curious about the technology they used to reduce the noise, as black hawks are very loud.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#199

Post by gamblor956 »

phaedrus wrote: post #179
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you don't have rust in CA but if they had a $1k fine where I live that would be just a massive slap in the face to poor people driving old cars (the exhaust rusts out and you don't know until it happens). I get that making cars more expensive is popular in certain places but unfortunately the reality is that a ton our infrastructure is based around them and the negative consequences of hidden costs like this a…

I don't know why you're getting downvoted but I'll second this. I had the same thought when my home state decided to double-the-double damages for some tickets (e.g. speeding in construction zone). For many if not most individuals and families in my low-income state a $1,000 ticket could start a cascade of disasters that ends with them losing their transportation, job, and place of living. It's cruelty pure and simpl…

Maybe people who can't afford a $1000 ticket for speeding in a construction zone shouldn't speed in a construction zone?

One of the reasons states increase fines regressively is because the targeted acts are committed most frequently by those at the lower end of the income spectrum, and existing fine amounts were insufficient to deter such activity.

Re: U.S. proposes to allow drone operation at night, over people

#200

Post by hndamien »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #66
cronix wrote: post #41

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 w…

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.

Or light pollution.
Post reply on HN