Are Tethers the Answer To the Safety Issues of Follow-Me Drone Technology? 88
Hallie Siegel (2973169) writes Camera-equipped follow-me drone technology is hitting the scene in spades, promising extreme sports enthusiasts and others amazing aerial shots. Imagine, your own dynamic tripod that follows you on command. But what about the safety issue of having follow-me drones crowding the ski slopes? The tethered Fotokite addresses these concerns while sidestepping FAA regulations.
Isn't this MORE dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the logic here escapes me. Aren't the danger of crossed-tethers exponentially greater than the danger of colliding drones?
This and more (Score:3)
I really don't want (amateur) pilots flying swarms of anything over my head at the beach/ski-slope/swimming pool. And tethering the drones to the pilots will mitigate what exactly?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It will mitigate legal trouble, as long as nothing happens. A tethered object isn't subject to the same rules as a free flying object. The pilot will still be liable for damaged caused, but not for breaking FAA rules. It's in the blurb, so mod this redundant.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Legal trouble? Who's talking about legal trouble? I'm talking about the physical and spatial problems of multiple tethered moving objects in a 3D environment.
Are you a lawyer?
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares what you worry about? If the rules say one must not fly a free flying drone above your head, but may fly a tethered one, then you can't stop someone from doing the latter. What matters to someone who wants to sell drones, tethered or not, is that people are not legally prevented from using the product. If the safer product can't be sold, then of course being legal trumps being safe.
Re:Who cares what you worry about? (Score:2, Troll)
I guess what you're trying to say is that you're a lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This and more (Score:2)
The title of the piece is "Are Tethers the Answer To the Safety Issues of Follow-Me Drone Technology?", so which the answer is an emphatic "No", for all the obvious reasons: collision, tangled tethers, over-head power cables, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will mitigate legal trouble, as long as nothing happens. A tethered object isn't subject to the same rules as a free flying object. The pilot will still be liable for damaged caused, but not for breaking FAA rules. It's in the blurb, so mod this redundant.
BUT... and this is about the 4th time I have pointed this out on Slashdot:
A Federal administrative judge has ruled that the FAA has no authority to regulate small drones. Although the FAA has appealed this ruling, I very highly doubt it will be overturned, because the judge made his ruling on the basis that Congress simply hasn't given them any authority to do so.
It the meantime, of course, the FAA is still trying to regulate everything in sight. But it won't last.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. Congress has given them authority of everything, and I do mean *everything* above a certain altitude, and within certain distances from airports. The current debate with the courts has more to do with the FAA being able to regulate *types of use* in the low-altitude range, and the current ruling (which is on hold pending more court battles) is more specifically about whether the FAA followed proper procedures when enacting those regulations.
No, it's not wrong. Although I do admit that I accidentally left out the "low altitude" part. Mea culpa.
But as the judge correctly pointed out, the law clearly states that the FAA has authority over "navigable" airspace, which means roughly airspace that is used for continuous travel by person-carrying vehicles. (This same rough definition is also used for "navigable" waters.)
So it's not even "everything" above a certain altitude. It is the travelable and traveled airways. Which are pretty clearly def
Re:This and more (Score:4, Informative)
Although we're not allowed to fly directly above pistes I can imagine these drones being very popular off-piste (i.e backcountry) where we often paraglide. A collision with an untethered drone *probably* wouldn't be too dangerous assuming the rotor blades are surrounded with a shroud but if it were tethered to the skier/boarder then the likelihood of it becoming tangled is quite high and could easily cause major problems for the paraglider pilot.
Luckily Chamonix is a very traditional resort so I'd expect these drones to be banned anywhere near the piste and (hopefully) off-piste as well, however it would be almost impossible to police off-piste!
As a pilot and aviation enthusiast... (Score:2)
I really rue the day that "r/c model aircraft" because a "drone". Suddenly, a toy is worth regulating, and it's become rather ridiculous.
Now we're talking about having to tether a model aircraft with a line, so that now we have entanglement issues?
Can somebody please add some reason?
Re: (Score:2)
This is mainly about soaring with full r/c than follow-drones which would presumably have a more predictable flight path, so not exactly the same situation but I'd still imagine speedrider pilots having problems with this because they are often well below the 400ft AGL height limit.
Re:This and more (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny I think the same thing about people with cars and guns. Yet somehow as a species we're content with the massive injury and death rate from those activities but a petrified from the highly remote chance that we may get killed by a terrorist, attacked by a shark, or hit by a falling drone.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think gun injuries are massive? By that definition, people being struck by lightning and winning lotteries are absolutely out of control and in epidemic rates.
Lumping car related injuries and fatalities in with guns is a wonderful way to create your hyperbole argument, but I would invite you to visit a shooting range some time. I think so far, without fail, once people actually use guns, they get a better impression of them and simply gain a better perspective on things.
We live in a dangerous world
Re:This and more (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahhh you must be one of those, "He mentioned guns so he must thing it should all be illegal, I better rebuff" types.
No, couldn't be further from the truth, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was saying that compared to getting killed by falling drones the above list is far more dangerous to the general health of people, and THEY ARE ALL LEGAL.
So everyone needs to take a deep breath, get some perspective and realise that getting killed by a flying drone is about likely as a terrorist attack. You should worry more about driving to a ski slope than dying on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Get your cars and your guns of my ski-slope ; ).
Re: (Score:2)
Get your cars and your guns of my ski-slope ; ).
You just made me think of an interesting new Olympic sport: The Drive-By Biathlon Jump. It will have both street-legal and monster-truck versions for both urban and rural American enjoyment.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun control is using two hands. If you hit the target with your 9mm, neither the bullet nor the target are going anywhere.
Though we both agree that a .223 is pretty useless. Overkill for short range defense against humans, woefully underpowered for Zombie attacks. It's really the 12 gauge shotgun that is your friend - safe, accurate (well, you don't need to be really accurate), effective.
Re: (Score:2)
A 12 guage is also a useful 'remote control' for drones. You don't even need radio contact.
Re: (Score:2)
If the 5.56 is so useless for self-defense, why are many federal agencies buying them for use as defensive weapons for their officers? Personally, I think 9mm or .40 carbines would be better but opinions differ.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think gun injuries are massive? By that definition, people being struck by lightning and winning lotteries are absolutely out of control and in epidemic rates.
Lumping car related injuries and fatalities in with guns is a wonderful way to create your hyperbole argument
Calm down, calm down, no hordes of Obama's magic negro communistical armies are going to come and confistcate your precious.
Can't even mention guns these days, without one of you kooks chiming in, upset and pissed, that the leebuuruls are tryin to take Mah guns!
Well okay, let's just expand this a little so all the kooks can play at once
I heard that guns cause Global warming, so do drones.
Is it true that you have to believe in creationism in order to be in the NRA, and I understand that there is Bib
Re: (Score:2)
More rare than by cars. As for actual children being killed... more rare than swimming pools.
Re: (Score:2)
More rare than by cars. As for actual children being killed... more rare than swimming pools.
Nuclear bombs kill even less kids!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's rational debate right there, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will find that the permission of the site location's management will likely be required as well to run this equipment as it becomes more common. I find the tech to be "cool" until you realize that it's all rather noisy. So it becomes not only a danger issue (and it's not like there isn't already danger associated with skiiing or any of the other activities likely to be focus of these drones) but one which is a nuissance to others.
This all speaks of the problems of enjoying and living in the mo
Re: This and more (Score:3)
Because for some reason people think I am interested in watching hours of videos of them going down a slope, riding a horse or pretending they are in Tour de France.
And they don't even bother to edit it down to a couple of minutes.
No, they have hours of footage showing off their below average skills.
I do like seeing bits of vacation videos but not really when it's just video selfies.
Re: (Score:3)
I see you've not been over to YouTube recently.
Re: (Score:2)
:)
Re: (Score:2)
Because many people think that 2 events is an epidemic.
Betteridge's law of headlines. (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the logic here escapes me. Aren't the danger of crossed-tethers exponentially greater than the danger of colliding drones?
Not only that, but it is also a very expensive balloon on a string.
Tethers don't matter, insurance does! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you really think about it, we've done quite a bit in our history with objects on strings, and yet a 20' string tied to helium balloons by the dozen doesn't require a pilots permit, and flying a kite doesn't require a license.
You don't have a clue what people are doing with these things, do you? Flying a unmanned aerial vehicle is nothing like tying a helium balloon to a string.
And naturally, the first question born from this insanity is why the hell aren't we forced to buy kite and balloon insurance these days...I'm rather shocked the greedy bastards let that one fly....literally.
You're not required to buy insurance for a lot of things, but you'll be personally liable for all damages without it. In the case of transportation, the risk of damage and injury is so great that the government has opted to mandate all vehicle operators be insured.
Artificial Kid (Score:2)
slap drones (Score:1)
Good, now slap drones are a reality. I wouldn't mind having a slap drone following me around, despite the social stigma, because nobody ever talks to me anyway. But do these things have any conversational skills? I'm guessing no.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "some people will misuse it so lets ban it for all" argument. Why are you not also clamoring for severe restrictions on the purchase of computers, cameras of all kinds but especially any device capable of video recording, cars and boats? Every one of those has been used irresponsibly and illegally in the past and will be in the future.
Ever been fishing? (Score:2)
Answer (Score:2)
simply no.
Re: (Score:2)
This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no". The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA doesn't use the term "drone" for anything. This thing, tethered or not, is a model aircraft. As long as it is used for hobby purposes within the guidelines for model aircraft, the FAA doesn't care. What the FAA does not allow is any unlicensed aircraft (which includes models, balloons, kites, gliders, rockets and probably tennis balls), tethered or not, to be used directly or indirectly for commercial purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
What the FAA does not allow is any unlicensed aircraft (which includes models, balloons, kites, gliders, rockets and probably tennis balls), tethered or not, to be used directly or indirectly for commercial purposes.
So, does this mean professional tennis tournaments are forbidden in the US? So, how are these guys [usopen.org] able to skirt the FAA regulations?
Article has nothing to do with safety (Score:2)
Perhaps I missed something, but the linked article (and also the Fotokite product/site) has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It talks about privacy/transparency.
A tether to a person on the ground only makes the devices even more unsafe, as they now get tangled with each other and other environmental hazards. Perhaps it would limit its range (which is not mentioned in the article), but a heavy device falling is a heavy device falling.
One thing that would increase drone safety would be an automatic par
Control line! well, not really. (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Control line aircraft are, according to some, (and citations of the supposed FAA response are never available) "motorized kites." Therefore having a permanent tether to the aircraft makes this model no longer subject to the same rules as a untethered aircraft (in theory). I am not sure if these are really parallel arguments though.
If use of a tether allows commercial operation of "camera drones" to resume then it is probably a good thing. Responsible operators taking reaso
Is it really that hard to add collision detection? (Score:2)
Some idea (Score:2)
What a tangled mess! (Score:2)
Just imagine these on a crowded ski slope, when every other ski runner has these. Not only will they tangle with each other, but also with the overhead ropes of ski lifts.
And if your particularly unlucky one stretch of tether might get tangled behind a rock while another stretch of the same tether gets tangled around a fellow skiers neck. No, I don't want these on any slope where I am skying. Even if the FAA don't have jurisdiction, hopefully the resorts will forb