Thursday night Mountain View power outage the result of a drone crash(mountainview.gov)
mountainview.gov
Thursday night Mountain View power outage the result of a drone crash
http://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1168&TargetID=9
182 comments
You can not protect against this sort of thing. The whole point is that any kind of destruction vs creation is asymmetric and that the destroyers will therefore always have the edge.
The kind of damage that you could do to power infrastructure with a length of chain, a bolt cutter, a wrench or even a hacksaw is huge, the amount of money you'd have to spend to protect against such damage would be many orders of magnitude larger, possibly to the point that power generation / transportation would no longer be feasible.
The same goes for most forms of transportation (a rifle bullet in the right place will bring down a passenger aircraft) and all other things that we've created assuming that people will 'play nice'.
And that in turn links to a concept called the open society which most Western countries subscribe to and which is a combination of freedoms and a resulting vulnerability that we all feel is balanced quite well.
Killing people or destroying is super easy, and if we want to stop that from happening we will need to fundamentally re-think how we live. Personally I don't mind the risks given the advantages.
The kind of damage that you could do to power infrastructure with a length of chain, a bolt cutter, a wrench or even a hacksaw is huge, the amount of money you'd have to spend to protect against such damage would be many orders of magnitude larger, possibly to the point that power generation / transportation would no longer be feasible.
The same goes for most forms of transportation (a rifle bullet in the right place will bring down a passenger aircraft) and all other things that we've created assuming that people will 'play nice'.
And that in turn links to a concept called the open society which most Western countries subscribe to and which is a combination of freedoms and a resulting vulnerability that we all feel is balanced quite well.
Killing people or destroying is super easy, and if we want to stop that from happening we will need to fundamentally re-think how we live. Personally I don't mind the risks given the advantages.
Of course you can protect those lines against drones: just bury them. Stop using aerial lines.
There are always issues, though. A few years ago, in my city, a neighborhood had an opportunity to vote for aerial or buried. Even though ´buried' made a lot more sense, they voted for aerial, because many feared "consequences" of being near the electromagnetic field of buried power lines.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt ... all caused by inadequate knowledge. That is the #1 problem to solve.
There are always issues, though. A few years ago, in my city, a neighborhood had an opportunity to vote for aerial or buried. Even though ´buried' made a lot more sense, they voted for aerial, because many feared "consequences" of being near the electromagnetic field of buried power lines.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt ... all caused by inadequate knowledge. That is the #1 problem to solve.
> Of course you can protect those lines against drones: just bury them.
'just' is not that simple, especially not for long distance. Underground cable is not necessarily cheaper either.
On a local level it may very well make sense to bury the cabling, but for long hauls even in countries where they routinely do bury cables above ground is used more often than not.
'just' is not that simple, especially not for long distance. Underground cable is not necessarily cheaper either.
On a local level it may very well make sense to bury the cabling, but for long hauls even in countries where they routinely do bury cables above ground is used more often than not.
> Underground cable is not necessarily cheaper either.
Underground cable is definitely more expensive.
Underground cable is definitely more expensive.
Considering some of these lines run across the (salt water) bay, yeah; it makes a lot more sense to run tall towers given the very low risk of aerial strikes.
Further decentralizing power production, and making power distribution more modular and repairable seems like a much better investment.
There are way too many cost and zoning barriers to bury lines. People are not going to pay to dig up roads, dig up backyards, fences, and bill citizens for their portion of the work, just to defend against this highly vertical risk (low liklihood, high penalty) of attack. And burying the lines has a massive opportunity cost. People won't even consider that option until there's an attack. And even then may come up with some other crazy idea, I don't know like lets invade some unrelated countries and fuck shit up for 30-40 years and then not really complain about the ensuing outcome all that much. You know, confusing vengeance with good public policy.
There are way too many cost and zoning barriers to bury lines. People are not going to pay to dig up roads, dig up backyards, fences, and bill citizens for their portion of the work, just to defend against this highly vertical risk (low liklihood, high penalty) of attack. And burying the lines has a massive opportunity cost. People won't even consider that option until there's an attack. And even then may come up with some other crazy idea, I don't know like lets invade some unrelated countries and fuck shit up for 30-40 years and then not really complain about the ensuing outcome all that much. You know, confusing vengeance with good public policy.
This. It's why the "war on terrorism" is a fool's errand, but that's also the point: the real reason we have a "war on terror" is to centralize authority for the government under the guise of protecting people. That so many have fallen for this pretty straightforward tactic is just disheartening.
What is your suggestion? By and large, society has gotten farther than folks realize by advantage of cooperation and a shared goal of peers. It has always been somewhat trivial to concoct a major threat to a lot of folks. Your local library has a ton of these ideas in the fiction section.
The expense of making things sabotage proof is substantial and hard to really accomplish completely. Even massive feats of engineering, such as the moon landing, all would have failed had a single actor been a saboteur.
The expense of making things sabotage proof is substantial and hard to really accomplish completely. Even massive feats of engineering, such as the moon landing, all would have failed had a single actor been a saboteur.
In any case, the cause of most power outages is still squirrels. We'll be in real trouble when the squirrels learn to pilot drones.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/06/17/squir...
http://cybersquirrel1.com/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2016/06/17/squir...
http://cybersquirrel1.com/
I guess that's why this Marvel character still reigns undefeated, having even once defeated Galactus:
http://marvel.com/universe/Squirrel_Girl#axzz4jY4M6FVc
http://marvel.com/universe/Squirrel_Girl#axzz4jY4M6FVc
We need a WAR ON SQUIRRELS.
Ladies and gentlemen:
I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours later.
I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation:
America's public enemy number one in the United States is nuts dependent. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of nut supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
Together nuts and there users can be defeated.
I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours later.
I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to be made to the Nation:
America's public enemy number one in the United States is nuts dependent. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
I have asked the Congress to provide the legislative authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive. This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of nut supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
Together nuts and there users can be defeated.
In all seriousness, this would probably lead to a higher ROI than the war on terror.
I agree with your point that terrorists aren't a real concern. I love this essay, Terrorism is not Effective which goes into much more detail on this: https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective
However sabotage is a real concern against rival nations. Iran basically lost their nuclear program because of sabotage. In world war 2 the Nazis were constantly set back by sabotage in many different areas. There are probably many more examples we don't know about because this stuff is usually top secret. The victims sometimes don't know it was caused by sabotage or don't make it public because it embarrasses them.
However sabotage is a real concern against rival nations. Iran basically lost their nuclear program because of sabotage. In world war 2 the Nazis were constantly set back by sabotage in many different areas. There are probably many more examples we don't know about because this stuff is usually top secret. The victims sometimes don't know it was caused by sabotage or don't make it public because it embarrasses them.
Apologies, I did not mean to minimize it to the point of not being a concern at all. I do think these are concerns, but it isn't like they are being completely ignored. Rather, it turns out these are very hard problems.
I agree with all of this, but would add that even the federal government describes power infrastructure with sentences like, "aging and ... being pushed to do more than it was originally designed to do" (https://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-...).
I'm not a power grid engineer. I don't have the knowledge to make useful, specific suggestions. I do live in an area with semi-regular power outages, whether caused by demand (summertime AC usage), thunderstorm, falling tree branches, vehicle vs. pole accidents, and other major component failure (the occasional transformer light show or squirrel suicide-by-transformer). In every case, PG&E appears to be coming out and replacing failed equipment with ... identical equipment. To their credit, they do it fairly quickly.
I seriously doubt though that the current situation is the best they can afford to do, especially with the current political focus on infrastructure.
I'm not a power grid engineer. I don't have the knowledge to make useful, specific suggestions. I do live in an area with semi-regular power outages, whether caused by demand (summertime AC usage), thunderstorm, falling tree branches, vehicle vs. pole accidents, and other major component failure (the occasional transformer light show or squirrel suicide-by-transformer). In every case, PG&E appears to be coming out and replacing failed equipment with ... identical equipment. To their credit, they do it fairly quickly.
I seriously doubt though that the current situation is the best they can afford to do, especially with the current political focus on infrastructure.
See one of my sibling responses. Is it the best we can afford? Maybe, maybe not. There is a good chance, though, that the cost of dealing with semi-regular outages is not above the cost of replacing the system with one that is immune to them.
I say this, of course, as someone that doesn't live in a place with regular outages. I think I've experienced 4 in the past decade. And a couple of those were following a massive wind storm. The street was out of capacity longer than the power was.
I say this, of course, as someone that doesn't live in a place with regular outages. I think I've experienced 4 in the past decade. And a couple of those were following a massive wind storm. The street was out of capacity longer than the power was.
Here is my suggestion. Remember the $850 billion President Obama spent on nonexistent shovel-ready jobs? If we simply buried the nation's Powerlines as they do in Europe with that money this kind of thing would not happen nearly as often.
Europe can afford to bury the cables in some places (definitely not all of them) because the population density is high enough that the extremely expensive underground high voltage cables (true marvels of materials science) make economic sense. This is something that would be very hard to replicate across large chunks of the US, the distances across which power is transferred are much larger. In some ways the situation would get worse, naked high voltage cables tend to dissuade people from trying to steal them or accidentally digging in to them with all manner of equipment.
The location is within a city, so the cost should be comparable to Europe, especially as this looks like a light industrial zone.
The only power lines I see nearby 200 Polaris Avenue look fairly normal voltage, the type the supplies the 'last mile' to homes and businesses. But, I'm not used to seeing cables above ground (except above railway tracks) so maybe I have the wrong assumition (see [1]), and this is actually a medium-high voltage.
In either case, these cables are routinely buried in urban areas in Europe. You'd need to go somewhere rural, very poor, or with weird geology for them to be above ground.
(Even the mid-sized village my mum lives in has buried cables; the last power interruption to the NAS I have there was 9 months ago.)
Polaris Avenue: https://www.google.dk/maps/@37.3981048,-122.083163,3a,75y,27...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#/m...
The only power lines I see nearby 200 Polaris Avenue look fairly normal voltage, the type the supplies the 'last mile' to homes and businesses. But, I'm not used to seeing cables above ground (except above railway tracks) so maybe I have the wrong assumition (see [1]), and this is actually a medium-high voltage.
In either case, these cables are routinely buried in urban areas in Europe. You'd need to go somewhere rural, very poor, or with weird geology for them to be above ground.
(Even the mid-sized village my mum lives in has buried cables; the last power interruption to the NAS I have there was 9 months ago.)
Polaris Avenue: https://www.google.dk/maps/@37.3981048,-122.083163,3a,75y,27...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#/m...
This is presupposing a lot.
* How often do you actually think it happens?
* What is the actual cost of it happening?
* What is the actual cost of fixing it?
They still haven't caught the people who attacked the power substation south of San Jose on purpose in 2013. There are so many of these things scattered around the country it's kind of difficult to protect without a lot of money.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/05/experts-sniper-attack-...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/02/05/experts-sniper-attack-...
The specificity is misleading you.
My guess is that if you look at the giant basket of things a group of terrorists could do in the US with modest funding, this is pretty low down on the list of harms, and solving it would be very low down on the cost/benefit list of harm reduction options.
Power outages happen frequently regardless. We've reduced the frequency to a level where it's not a big deal. If they were a really big problem, we already would have hardened things.
My guess is that if you look at the giant basket of things a group of terrorists could do in the US with modest funding, this is pretty low down on the list of harms, and solving it would be very low down on the cost/benefit list of harm reduction options.
Power outages happen frequently regardless. We've reduced the frequency to a level where it's not a big deal. If they were a really big problem, we already would have hardened things.
Ah. Fear. It's cheap.
We used to play a game in high school: "How to destroy the United States for less than $100,000." One obsolete example: destroying the six mammoth machines and two spares that processed all physical checks, bringing transactions to a halt for weeks. There were hundreds of ways.
Our greatest defense has always been being a reasonable people full of smart citizens.
We used to play a game in high school: "How to destroy the United States for less than $100,000." One obsolete example: destroying the six mammoth machines and two spares that processed all physical checks, bringing transactions to a halt for weeks. There were hundreds of ways.
Our greatest defense has always been being a reasonable people full of smart citizens.
Worth noting: Mylar balloons are conductive and extremely effective at causing power outages. We've been living with this exact vulnerability for decades.
Undergrounding is very expensive, and does not protect against deliberate attacks on infrastructure. Ultimately, local power line cuts are merely an annoyance and it's not worth the effort to fix it.
Undergrounding is very expensive, and does not protect against deliberate attacks on infrastructure. Ultimately, local power line cuts are merely an annoyance and it's not worth the effort to fix it.
When AT&T Park in San Francisco was opened some 15 years ago, festive mylar balloons killed the power in my office building nearby.
We are and continue to be vulnerable. Bruce Schneier used to run a competition about plots until he got too spooked with how vulnerable we are:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/movieplot_thr...
We are fortunate that terrorists, by and large, are dumb.
The solution is that you keep trucking along and you ignore terrorists. Many other things in life have a much higher probability of killing you, and you don't fret over them.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/movieplot_thr...
We are fortunate that terrorists, by and large, are dumb.
The solution is that you keep trucking along and you ignore terrorists. Many other things in life have a much higher probability of killing you, and you don't fret over them.
> We are fortunate that terrorists, by and large, are dumb.
No, we are fortunate that the number of real terrorists (those willing to follow through on their ideas) is small. If they weren't you'd know about it because there would be (a) many more attacks that succeeded and (b) many more arrests of attacks foiled.
The fact that both these numbers are extremely low is evidence for lack of terrorists, not for terrorists being dumb.
For a terrorist taking the power out is not sexy enough, slashing a bunch of people with knives or blowing up a bunch of schoolchildren is. See also: "If it bleeds, it leads".
No, we are fortunate that the number of real terrorists (those willing to follow through on their ideas) is small. If they weren't you'd know about it because there would be (a) many more attacks that succeeded and (b) many more arrests of attacks foiled.
The fact that both these numbers are extremely low is evidence for lack of terrorists, not for terrorists being dumb.
For a terrorist taking the power out is not sexy enough, slashing a bunch of people with knives or blowing up a bunch of schoolchildren is. See also: "If it bleeds, it leads".
They are pretty dumb, to be fair. Attacking random people without personal reasons hoping it would change the bigger picture is incredibly stupid if you think about it. Which they don't.
They seem to take inspiration from revolutions and such, still not understanding that it took way more than a few incidents of violence and death to actually change things.
They seem to take inspiration from revolutions and such, still not understanding that it took way more than a few incidents of violence and death to actually change things.
What are you talking about?
The insurgency in Iraq successfully turned America isolationist, to the point that boots on the ground against current threats far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was are out of the question.
A few thousand dollars worth of violence in Europe achieved Brexit, elected right-wing candidates across Europe, closed borders against refugees, and has generally set European governments to the task of creating what ISIS wants: a massive population of disaffected Muslims with nowhere to call home and nothing to lose (to fight its planned holy war).
Terrorism achieves monumental policy changes from enormous institutions which otherwise have titanic inertia, for the price of a handful of operatives and a few grand.
In the wildest dreams of an ambitious US Secretary of State, he might one day have an effect on the state of the world 1/10th the size of what certain modern terrorists have accomplished, for ~7 orders of magnitude more money. Although hopefully in his case, it would be a positive effect.
The insurgency in Iraq successfully turned America isolationist, to the point that boots on the ground against current threats far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was are out of the question.
A few thousand dollars worth of violence in Europe achieved Brexit, elected right-wing candidates across Europe, closed borders against refugees, and has generally set European governments to the task of creating what ISIS wants: a massive population of disaffected Muslims with nowhere to call home and nothing to lose (to fight its planned holy war).
Terrorism achieves monumental policy changes from enormous institutions which otherwise have titanic inertia, for the price of a handful of operatives and a few grand.
In the wildest dreams of an ambitious US Secretary of State, he might one day have an effect on the state of the world 1/10th the size of what certain modern terrorists have accomplished, for ~7 orders of magnitude more money. Although hopefully in his case, it would be a positive effect.
This strikes me as generally true, except for the "few thousands of dollars" part. Billions flow through these groups, and while an individual attack might only cost a fraction of that, it's probably not fair to consider it in isolation.
> Attacking random people without personal reasons hoping it would change the bigger picture is incredibly stupid
Is it? A handful of random people killed in the UK, and people in gov started mentioning internment camps. This is playing right into Isis plan.
Is it? A handful of random people killed in the UK, and people in gov started mentioning internment camps. This is playing right into Isis plan.
Second-rate right wing agitator Paul Nuttall wasnt part of government and was at best a peripheral figure in UK politics, before his resignation.
Hateful professional trolls like Katie Hopkins might have vomited bile to that effect, but iirc Nuttall was the only person even remotely linked to Westminster talking about internment camps as a solution, everybody else dismissed it as a silly idea.
Hateful professional trolls like Katie Hopkins might have vomited bile to that effect, but iirc Nuttall was the only person even remotely linked to Westminster talking about internment camps as a solution, everybody else dismissed it as a silly idea.
You're right, sorry, I remember reading about it BBC and was sure it was one of the MPs. It was not.
> We are fortunate that terrorists, by and large, are dumb.
How so? Drive a van into a crowd of people, and it's spread across the papers and people talk about it for ages. Cut regional power briefly and it's forgotten before next week.
How so? Drive a van into a crowd of people, and it's spread across the papers and people talk about it for ages. Cut regional power briefly and it's forgotten before next week.
>> We are fortunate that terrorists, by and large, are dumb.
> How so? Drive a van into a crowd of people, and it's spread across the papers and people talk about it for ages. Cut regional power briefly and it's forgotten before next week.
Driving a van into a crowd of people is only local and the damage is contained.
Cut regional power briefly is temporally local and damage is contained.
There are far more permanent and non-localized things that a "smart" terrorist could do. Fortunately, there is almost always a much more useful way to put "smart" knowledge to use than terrorism.
> How so? Drive a van into a crowd of people, and it's spread across the papers and people talk about it for ages. Cut regional power briefly and it's forgotten before next week.
Driving a van into a crowd of people is only local and the damage is contained.
Cut regional power briefly is temporally local and damage is contained.
There are far more permanent and non-localized things that a "smart" terrorist could do. Fortunately, there is almost always a much more useful way to put "smart" knowledge to use than terrorism.
Pedestrians are walking around moving cars everywhere. Some number of people will be terrorized whenever they notice a car is not moving like they expect.
Diamons(1)
I'm pretty sure that one drone causing a car crash that kills one person would be more effective terrorism than 20 drones taking out lots of electricity. I.e., you're right, it's just probably not what terrorists would do with drones.
The entire world is not quite ready for what these devices are and what they enable. It's not surprising at all.
Also worth noting that the FAA has been trying to regulate these devices and that attempt failed in court. So right now the rules are incredibly lax, and most folks don't file flight plans because usually the folks at airports won't even talk to you when you try and call them about it (or so has been my experience).
But it's disconcerting, because its just not that hard to imagine someone using these devices for all sorts of previously unimagined crimes.
Also worth noting that the FAA has been trying to regulate these devices and that attempt failed in court. So right now the rules are incredibly lax, and most folks don't file flight plans because usually the folks at airports won't even talk to you when you try and call them about it (or so has been my experience).
But it's disconcerting, because its just not that hard to imagine someone using these devices for all sorts of previously unimagined crimes.
This is in part due to the fact that many of these things are controlled over common Wifi and without modifying any of the equipment (in a manner that would violate FCC regulations) this sets a fairly low ceiling on how high they can go. Low enough that if an actual plane is flying that low, the aircraft's pilot is probably going to be in trouble with the FAA for barnstorming neighborhoods.
Heh, having recently gotten into the homebrew drone scene, it's pretty clear to me that people are NOT listening to FAA regs, on the reg.
But it's probably an incorrect assumption, as a drone can be autonomous. This means its flight time is much more a function of its power storage than its radio range. Racing drones can exceed 200km/h and can do that for about 7-10 minutes, while streaming 3d video back to a pilot who's piloting it in VR.
I don't know of many practical systems for fully autonomous flight there (those things are way more rickety and weight limited than your typical quadcopter), but consider that a drone intent on causing damage at SFO could conceivably launch from _Palo Alto_ and make it there pretty damn fast, using sub $300 drone hardware and a spare smartphone.
But it's probably an incorrect assumption, as a drone can be autonomous. This means its flight time is much more a function of its power storage than its radio range. Racing drones can exceed 200km/h and can do that for about 7-10 minutes, while streaming 3d video back to a pilot who's piloting it in VR.
I don't know of many practical systems for fully autonomous flight there (those things are way more rickety and weight limited than your typical quadcopter), but consider that a drone intent on causing damage at SFO could conceivably launch from _Palo Alto_ and make it there pretty damn fast, using sub $300 drone hardware and a spare smartphone.
[deleted]
This reminds me of a rather disturbing realization I had a few years ago. In places like the Bay Area, it would take only a small handful of non-violent protesters to completely shut down the major transit systems (aka the roads). All they'd need to do is to slow, stop and then park 3-5 cars in strategic places on 880, 80, 85, 101 and 280 and walk away. It would be mayhem.
Angry people would quickly move them to the side.
Much more worrisome is snipers shooting industrial transformers, causing massive damage while spending close to nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
Much more worrisome is snipers shooting industrial transformers, causing massive damage while spending close to nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
It's already been done in the Bay Area: https://twitter.com/i/moments/689241776549269504?lang=en
Interesting how they call this illegal because airport is within 5 miles. Airport is almost unrelated to this particular situation but I guess it's a concrete way to make person liable.
The law states that FAA owns airspace and that flying within 5nm of towered airport without contacting tower is illegal. Simple.
I checked, and that means it's basically illegal to fly a drone in the bay area: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB54FczUQAEQ5D6.jpg:large
It's not just the Bay Area. The restrictions and FAA guidelines are written in a way that prohibits almost all recreational flying in urban areas. I don't think I've seen a single widely-shared drone video that wasn't afoul of the law.
Depending on your definition of widely-shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP9KY3lNeBc
.. without notifying the airport, yes. You can fly within 5 miles if you give them notice (it can be a voicemail/email).
Not quite. You can fly below 400 feet AGL as long as you stay out of the immediate part of the class B,c,d airspace that touches the ground. While a lot of the bay is regulated airspace, there is plenty of area below 400feet that is not within he class b/c/d. SFO is class B, but most of the others are class C and do not extend quite so far.
As for notices, if you are working near airports with drones commercially, filing a NOTAM is a good idea. If you are Within the airspace, you will need to get permission from the control tower, which requires advanced filing. (Up to 90 days ahead of time). Calling the local tower/airport as a hobbyist is a bad idea. Instead, just fly somewhere else, and NEVER fly above 400 feet or within regulated airspace.
Note that apps like AirMap can help figure this stuff out, however, there are a lot of helipads in the city that make things problematic. Some of which are not actually still there, but which were never removed from the FAA records. However, the UCSF medical center is one which is active. Also, IME tourist/ sightseeing helicopters regularly fly too low in the bay. If a drone causes an accident, even if the pilot of the helicopter is flying illegally low I doubt anyone would side with the drone operator.
Finally, even as a hobbyist, it is worth getting verifly if you are flying in busy areas. Being able to buy spot insurance for flights is great if you are flying somewhere unfamiliar, or testing a new drone.
As for notices, if you are working near airports with drones commercially, filing a NOTAM is a good idea. If you are Within the airspace, you will need to get permission from the control tower, which requires advanced filing. (Up to 90 days ahead of time). Calling the local tower/airport as a hobbyist is a bad idea. Instead, just fly somewhere else, and NEVER fly above 400 feet or within regulated airspace.
Note that apps like AirMap can help figure this stuff out, however, there are a lot of helipads in the city that make things problematic. Some of which are not actually still there, but which were never removed from the FAA records. However, the UCSF medical center is one which is active. Also, IME tourist/ sightseeing helicopters regularly fly too low in the bay. If a drone causes an accident, even if the pilot of the helicopter is flying illegally low I doubt anyone would side with the drone operator.
Finally, even as a hobbyist, it is worth getting verifly if you are flying in busy areas. Being able to buy spot insurance for flights is great if you are flying somewhere unfamiliar, or testing a new drone.
> Calling the local tower/airport as a hobbyist is a bad idea.
Yet, that is what the FAA says to do.
Friends in the local flying club are really trying to obey all the rules, and call the tower because they are ~4 miles away from the airport. At first, the people at the local tower were just annoyed by the phone calls and would say, "I don't care if you're flying a toy 4 miles away. Why are you calling?" Now that the new rules are more known, the person who answers is very quick and courteous, "Where are you? Stay under 400, have fun."
Yet, that is what the FAA says to do.
Friends in the local flying club are really trying to obey all the rules, and call the tower because they are ~4 miles away from the airport. At first, the people at the local tower were just annoyed by the phone calls and would say, "I don't care if you're flying a toy 4 miles away. Why are you calling?" Now that the new rules are more known, the person who answers is very quick and courteous, "Where are you? Stay under 400, have fun."
They can get a letter of agreement from the tower that says they don't have to call every time. Then they can be legal without annoying ATC.
You are talking about part 107 operations. I was talking about part 101. You can fly in any airspace (because as a hobbyist you're not expected to know airspaces). But you must notify airports within 5 miles, which has nothing to do with airspace.
> Calling the local tower/airport as a hobbyist is a bad idea.
Please do the spread misinformation like that. You can be perfectly safe if you follow the rules even within the 5 mile radius.
> Calling the local tower/airport as a hobbyist is a bad idea.
Please do the spread misinformation like that. You can be perfectly safe if you follow the rules even within the 5 mile radius.
Apologies. My mistake. At multiple time during part 107 training they told us not to bug ATC. I didn't realize that the hobbyist restrictions indicated differently.
Ah, I'm sorry for the tone in my comment.
Btw even as 107 certified, you can still always opt to operate a flight as a hobbyist, as long as you meet the 101 criteria (non-commercial, LOS, etc.)
Btw even as 107 certified, you can still always opt to operate a flight as a hobbyist, as long as you meet the 101 criteria (non-commercial, LOS, etc.)
That is correct except for places like pacifica
[deleted]
I don't see a legend. What do the areas with diagonal lines mean?
[deleted]
Yes but I would still want applicable laws preventing drone instigated powerouts for the rest of the country not within 5 mi of an airport.
How do they measure 5 nanometers?
Safe and efficient flight routes, like useful frequency spectra, are a high demand limited space quantity that can't be used by two people at the same time. To my mind, flying near an airport is actually the more troublesome crime, because people will assume it doesn't matter, but it definitely does.
An international flight system is only possible because a highly regulated system exists to ensure that a French plane flying east over Ukrainian airspace won't collide with a Norwegian plane going south, which is why all major flight plans are filed in advance.
If some scrub with $500 and no brain forces a plane to deviate from it's flight path to avoid sucking his $350 drone into its $12,000,000 engine, it could cause a chain-reaction of re-routing that costs tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and delay associated costs.
Don't fuck with airports. If you've got to scratch that public nuisance itch, go fishing with dynamite or something.
An international flight system is only possible because a highly regulated system exists to ensure that a French plane flying east over Ukrainian airspace won't collide with a Norwegian plane going south, which is why all major flight plans are filed in advance.
If some scrub with $500 and no brain forces a plane to deviate from it's flight path to avoid sucking his $350 drone into its $12,000,000 engine, it could cause a chain-reaction of re-routing that costs tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and delay associated costs.
Don't fuck with airports. If you've got to scratch that public nuisance itch, go fishing with dynamite or something.
Not really a big deal. Hundreds of airplanes deviate every day for weather, technical problems, medical issues on board, etc. Deviations are normal and accommodated.
They deviate because they have to. Trying to cause that on purpose is intentionally wasting tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and is a pretty antisocial thing to do.
Okay, but it doesn't make sense to me how a plane deviating (somehow) in order not to collide with a drone would affect any other plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_(aeronautics)
I'm curious why a drone was able to cause any issue. Could a bird or stray piece of trash in the same area have caused the issue (was it a short?), or did it require the force of the spinning blades?
Squirrels, mice, rats, raccoons, and birds take out power stations all the time. Many transformer stations are exposed to open air for cooling, with nothing more than a fence topped with razor wire for a barrier. This makes for easy, easy entry.
Maybe drones should require liability insurance coverage. That should create a market forces that encourages safer drone technology.
Disclosure: I work for an insurance company and previously owned a commercial drone business.
Disclosure: I work for an insurance company and previously owned a commercial drone business.
Mandating insurance perverts incentives. Insurance wouldn't necessarily pay out the claim, putting the drone owner in a position of the liability (s)he is in now.
Also, this does nothing to change incentives for the electrical grid, which should not be nearly as brittle as it is.
That said, this is probably the simplest single solution to address what happened -- assuming anything should be done.
Also, this does nothing to change incentives for the electrical grid, which should not be nearly as brittle as it is.
That said, this is probably the simplest single solution to address what happened -- assuming anything should be done.
Also mandatory insurance for kites and balloons, either of which could have caused the same damage.
Especially kiteboarding kites (with sizes of 5-20sq meters) which are flown by Sherman Island right near the high-voltage power lines which also go over the river.
I love drones, it hurts to read something like this because I worry that the public's gut reaction will be to ban them. However, it's only a matter of time before these types of incidents add up. I think a step in the right direction would be for drones to communicate to some kind of central hub, that way responsibility for these types of things wouldn't be an issue, and people could more easily contact surrounding airports/helipads (ex: before you launch a signal could go out to the surrounding airports for notification).
I'm against a complete ban, but there should definitely be more restrictions than we have currently. Strict licensing requirements and a total ban on flying over private property (without explicit, written permission) seem like no-brainers to me.
I hate this attitude. Many of the great technologies we have today were pretty dangerous and feared when they first appeared. I honestly think if electricity or automobiles were invented today, they would quickly be banned. Drones could be incredibly useful for many purposes and your proposal would basically kill them.
The problem is that drones really are a nuisance to everybody except the drone flyer.
They are noisy. They get in the way. They can fall out of the air. etc.
They are noisy. They get in the way. They can fall out of the air. etc.
The same problems apply to cars and airplanes and imagine the world if those were banned early on.
Airplanes are not a great example. Airplanes were very much a hazard until the FAA finally got serious (
PSA 182 is cited as a turning point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182)
Cars, in fact, exhibited almost exactly the same kinds of problems we see in drones right now: http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_86_1.html
In fact, cars caused far MORE fatalities and came under scrutiny very quickly.
The idea that past technologies somehow got adopted in an "unfettered, unregulated field" is bogus revisionism.
Cars, in fact, exhibited almost exactly the same kinds of problems we see in drones right now: http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/themes/story_86_1.html
In fact, cars caused far MORE fatalities and came under scrutiny very quickly.
The idea that past technologies somehow got adopted in an "unfettered, unregulated field" is bogus revisionism.
I'm not sure what your point is. My whole point is that cars and airplanes were incredibly dangerous and unregulated when they first were introduced. Thank god they weren't banned or sued out of existence as a knee jerk reaction. If cars or planes were invented today I have no doubt they would be unable to take off. I doubt anyone would even invest in such technology.
We now laugh at stories of cities that set car speed limits at 5 miles per hour and mandated an escort. But we are doing far sillier things today with every new technology.
We now laugh at stories of cities that set car speed limits at 5 miles per hour and mandated an escort. But we are doing far sillier things today with every new technology.
I don't think anyone is proposing banning them. Among other things, many people are skeptical that they should be allowed to fly willy-nilly over everyone's private property. Which seems a reasonable question. After all, you can't typically drive and often even walk on someone else's property.
I do think there are special circumstances where drone delivery of medicine and other urgently needed items may very well make sense. One hour Amazon delivery of a USB cable and a Red Bull? Probably not.
I do think there are special circumstances where drone delivery of medicine and other urgently needed items may very well make sense. One hour Amazon delivery of a USB cable and a Red Bull? Probably not.
Ok, so you own a drone and live in an apartment. You now can't fly it anywhere. That's in effect the same as a ban. There is literally 1 RC airfield within an hour drive of San Jose last time I looked into it. Most drone owners would likely not buy them if there was an actually-enforced law like that.
How would it kill them? Getting permission of property owners is a hindrance, sure, but I'm not willing to give up privacy rights for the privilege of flying drones wherever I want.
Its no different than hunting, where you already have to get a license and ask for permission before going on to private property.
Its no different than hunting, where you already have to get a license and ask for permission before going on to private property.
How do you make a drone delivery service without having to get the permission of millions of property owners? If just a few don't consent your business is dead. It's absurd.
Hunting is actually taking resources from someone's property. A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all. Airplanes don't have to get permission from me to fly overhead. They can even legally take photos of my property if they want.
Just the other day some recreational pilot crashed in a field near me, and he didn't have to have a flight plan or anything. You don't even need a pilots license if it's something like an ultralight. Drones are vastly safety than that.
Hunting is actually taking resources from someone's property. A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all. Airplanes don't have to get permission from me to fly overhead. They can even legally take photos of my property if they want.
Just the other day some recreational pilot crashed in a field near me, and he didn't have to have a flight plan or anything. You don't even need a pilots license if it's something like an ultralight. Drones are vastly safety than that.
>How do you make a drone delivery service without having to get the permission of millions of property owners?
Maybe you can't. And that's just fine?
Maybe you can't. And that's just fine?
It's not fine. As we continue to resist new technologies our country will stagnate and others will outcompete us.
Flying drones are noisy and create visual distraction. If they became very popular they could definitely harm me. Wreck a beautiful sunset with flying drones going by. Wreck peaceful outside activity with drone buzzing. Industrial and commercial areas, sure. Maybe not residential. It would be interesting if people would try small, slow, quiet, wheeled drones on sidewalks for local delivery. Probably illegal with current laws, but those could be modified.
>A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all.
Until it falls on your head. Not to mention the gross privacy violations that this allows.
Until it falls on your head. Not to mention the gross privacy violations that this allows.
Light aircraft could always fly over your house and take pictures as far as I know.
But they couldn't hover just outside your window.. and unless I'm mistaken, they were forbidden from flying 1,000ft below the highest point in a half mile radius. And you need a pilot's license to fly.. and come to think of it, they're not remotely similar.
Technically you don't need a pilots license for certain kinds of aircraft. I don't know what the height restrictions are, but I see recreational pilots get away with flying less than that all the time. One just crashed and died near my house and could have killed someone.
But the point is that a small drone is orders of magnitude less dangerous than even the smallest aircraft. The regulations should reflect that and be far less strict on them, not more. I'm ok with height restrictions or regulations against hovering outside of someones window. That's probably already illegal under peeping tom laws anyway. If it's not it should be.
But banning them entirely is just a knee jerk fear to new technology. This has potentially immense utility for delivery and other applications, just give it a chance. Despite all the media fear mongering the number of people killed by drones is negligible after more than 5 years.
But the point is that a small drone is orders of magnitude less dangerous than even the smallest aircraft. The regulations should reflect that and be far less strict on them, not more. I'm ok with height restrictions or regulations against hovering outside of someones window. That's probably already illegal under peeping tom laws anyway. If it's not it should be.
But banning them entirely is just a knee jerk fear to new technology. This has potentially immense utility for delivery and other applications, just give it a chance. Despite all the media fear mongering the number of people killed by drones is negligible after more than 5 years.
> Strict licensing requirements
I don't think there's any reason to prevent a hobbiest from flying a drone at lower altitudes over their own property. Wouldn't solve any problems and wouldn't gather any public support.
But drone pilots engaging in most other types of activity should be qualified, with some regulation.
That said...
> A total ban on flying over private property (without explicit, written permission) seem like no-brainers to me
The airspace in the US above a certain altitude is legally public space. It belongs to everybody.
I'm a private pilot. With the exception of certain security sensitive areas and military operations, I can fly anywhere.
Busier airspace is "controlled" in that I have to be in contact with ATC, announce my intentions, and follow their instructions... but they can't prevent me from using the airspace.
I can take my small, slow Cessna to JFK and ask to land, and they have to keep my card on the board and slot me in when possible.
So, with almost no exception, I can fly over any private property legally.
A Recreational or Sport Pilot license is even easier to get than Private, and enables mostly the same situation wrt flying over private property.
Ultralight aircraft can be flown without any pilot licensing whatsoever. They cannot be flown over "populated areas", but this includes a vast majority of the country that is still "private property"
So my question is; Why should drones be so much more restrictive that actual person-carrying airplanes?
I don't think there's any reason to prevent a hobbiest from flying a drone at lower altitudes over their own property. Wouldn't solve any problems and wouldn't gather any public support.
But drone pilots engaging in most other types of activity should be qualified, with some regulation.
That said...
> A total ban on flying over private property (without explicit, written permission) seem like no-brainers to me
The airspace in the US above a certain altitude is legally public space. It belongs to everybody.
I'm a private pilot. With the exception of certain security sensitive areas and military operations, I can fly anywhere.
Busier airspace is "controlled" in that I have to be in contact with ATC, announce my intentions, and follow their instructions... but they can't prevent me from using the airspace.
I can take my small, slow Cessna to JFK and ask to land, and they have to keep my card on the board and slot me in when possible.
So, with almost no exception, I can fly over any private property legally.
A Recreational or Sport Pilot license is even easier to get than Private, and enables mostly the same situation wrt flying over private property.
Ultralight aircraft can be flown without any pilot licensing whatsoever. They cannot be flown over "populated areas", but this includes a vast majority of the country that is still "private property"
So my question is; Why should drones be so much more restrictive that actual person-carrying airplanes?
I think it's a no-brainer that people don't own the airspace above their property. Ban on flying over private property is absurd.
There's a big difference between flying 1000 ft above private property in a properly licensed aircraft and flying 50 ft above.
> There's a big difference between flying 1000 ft above private property in a properly licensed aircraft and flying 50 ft above.
In populated areas I can legally at ~520' above ground level (500' minimum above structures in the vicinity, and most structures are 1 or 2 stories)
So a quiz: Cessna doing standard rate turns over your house at 500' above, or a drone passing over at 300'
Which would you prefer?
In populated areas I can legally at ~520' above ground level (500' minimum above structures in the vicinity, and most structures are 1 or 2 stories)
So a quiz: Cessna doing standard rate turns over your house at 500' above, or a drone passing over at 300'
Which would you prefer?
Thanks for sharing. More evidence that power lines should be under ground.
Can you really not fly your drone "around people"? I thought you could fly in parks.
Can you really not fly your drone "around people"? I thought you could fly in parks.
Here are the rules in Canada: https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/Infographic_-...
"[Do not fly your drone:] closer than 75 m from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds"
"[Do not fly your drone:] closer than 75 m from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds"
In the US the law is that you MUST fly your drone within 121 meters of buildings, vessels, or the ground.
> In the US the law is that you MUST fly your drone within 121 meters of buildings, vessels, or the ground.
That's true! Except just the ground, not buildings or vessels. So, not true at all.
That's true! Except just the ground, not buildings or vessels. So, not true at all.
No, the regulation includes "400 feet from any structure". So if you fly within 400 feet of an obstacle such as a building, transmission tower, or antenna, you are within the law (of the sky). Whether you are within the law of the county or state regarding trespassing is a whole different question.
In Canada you must fly withing 90m to the ground but at least 75m away from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds.
That's for recreational use of drones weighting 250 g and up to 35 kg.
That's for recreational use of drones weighting 250 g and up to 35 kg.
Within 121 meters? Which law is this?
It's just the 400 foot max altitude rule phrased in an odd way.
Sounds like it isn't a metric one.
I thought power lines, in contact with the dirt, can make the ground electrocutive.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by electrocutive, not being a native English speaker and all, but in my home country of the Netherlands over 90% of power lines have been underground since the 50s without any ill effects...
It creates a voltage gradient radiating out from the contact point. A gradient of more than 15VAC/m is generally bad news. The resistance can be enough to prevent automatic circuit protections from tripping as well if there's not a high current, such as dry high-resistance soil.
Downed power lines, yes.
Insulate them?
The cost of insulating a 765kV power line is prohibitively high.
Although in the modern day it might make sense to move more low voltage power lines underground than did previously.
Although in the modern day it might make sense to move more low voltage power lines underground than did previously.
Plus unless that insulation is made of something we haven't invented yet it's bound to flake and peel off in time.
You can fly your drone around people as long as those people don't include me.
of course underground power lines will be more expensive for the moment.
So will drones produce more values than the cost to invest on underground power lines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergrounding
Advantages
So will drones produce more values than the cost to invest on underground power lines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergrounding
Advantages
Less subject to damage from severe weather conditions (mainly lightning, wind and freezing)
Reduced range of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emission, into the surrounding area. However depending on the depth of the underground cable, greater emf may be experienced.[2] The electric current in the cable conductor produces a magnetic field, but the closer grouping of underground power cables reduces the resultant external magnetic field and further magnetic shielding may be provided. See Electromagnetic radiation and health.
Underground cables need a narrower surrounding strip of about 1–10 meters to install (up to 30 m for 400 kV cables during construction), whereas an overhead line requires a surrounding strip of about 20–200 meters wide to be kept permanently clear for safety, maintenance and repair.
Underground cables pose no hazard to low flying aircraft or to wildlife.
Much less subject to conductor theft, illegal connections,[3] sabotage, and damage from armed conflict.
Burying utility lines makes room for more large trees on sidewalks,[4] which convey environmental benefits and increase property values [5]
Undergrounding is more expensive, since the cost of burying cables at transmission voltages is several times greater than overhead power lines, and the life-cycle cost of an underground power cable is two to four times the cost of an overhead power line. Above ground lines cost around $10 per foot and underground lines cost in the range of $20 to $40 per foot.[6] In highly urbanized areas the cost of underground transmission can be 10-14 times as expensive as overhead.[7]
Whereas finding and repairing overhead wire breaks can be accomplished in hours, underground repairs can take days or weeks,[8] and for this reason redundant lines are run.
Underground cable locations are not always obvious, which can lead to unwary diggers damaging cables or being electrocuted.
Operations are more difficult since the high reactive power of underground cables produces large charging currents and so makes voltage control more difficult.[citation needed]
Whereas overhead lines can easily be uprated by modifying line clearances and power poles to carry more power, underground cables cannot be uprated and must be supplemented or replaced to increase capacity. Transmission and distribution companies generally future-proof underground lines by installing the highest-rated cables while being still cost-effective.
Underground cables are more subject to damage by ground movement. The 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand caused damage to 360 kilometres (220 mi) of high voltage underground cables and subsequently cut power to large parts of Christchurch city, whereas only a few kilometres of overhead lines were damaged, largely due to pole foundations being compromised by liquefaction.
[deleted]
Yes they should be
That being said, it's still the responsibility of the operator to not collide with anything in the air
That being said, it's still the responsibility of the operator to not collide with anything in the air
Thats most likely heavy guarded by lobbyist. On average while in transmit, power companies get 20% more of electricity just by putting cables in the air.
No, you cannot fly your drone over people. The exception being surveying construction sites as it is assumed that people on construction sites are already wearing hard hats.
Ironically parks, which would be an ideal place to fly, are often no-fly zones. For example all national parks in America ban drones as do many state parks.
Ironically parks, which would be an ideal place to fly, are often no-fly zones. For example all national parks in America ban drones as do many state parks.
> Ironically parks, which would be an ideal place to fly, are often no-fly zones. For example all national parks in America ban drones as do many state parks.
That doesn't stop people, in my experience.
That doesn't stop people, in my experience.
Google search for "drone national park" and you'll find out why.
"Why did the NPS restrict unmanned aircraft? The National Park Service embraces many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care. However, due to serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft can have for safety of visitors, staff, and wildlife, they have been restricted in all but a few parks."
I meant that you'll find incidents like the guy "landing" his drone into the hot springs in Yellowstone. A lot more along these lines.
You can fly them around people, you're just not supposed to fly them over people [1]. However, if you're flying commercially, you can get a wavier for this.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
Interestingly enough, almost all transmission lines in San Francisco are underground; almost all of what you see overhead are either telephone/cable, or overhead wires for powering MUNI, our municipal light rail.
Long-haul lines in North America are rarely buried, the cost is too high. One notable exception is Quebec's grid which, after the disatrous 1998 ice storm which brought down a huge portion of their lines, buried them to avoid a similar catastrophe in the future.
Tennessee had the same thing happen at about the same time. They still aren't burying power lines.
[deleted]
I mean wouldn't that be an issue for areas with tectonic activity? I wouldn't imagine they would be as easy to repair if they were under ground.
> More evidence that power lines should be under ground.
I agree in principle, and there are places that do this, but there are a lot of practical considerations too. A neat story about what it's like when there's a failure in a big underground line: https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/archive/high-power
In California, you have problems with tectonic movement -- even small fault activity will stretch, relocate, and damage buried lines. In nearly everywhere else, you have underground water tables seeping in around your buried lines.
None of these are insurmountable, but they don't make it an easy job either.
I agree in principle, and there are places that do this, but there are a lot of practical considerations too. A neat story about what it's like when there's a failure in a big underground line: https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/net/user/tytso/archive/high-power
In California, you have problems with tectonic movement -- even small fault activity will stretch, relocate, and damage buried lines. In nearly everywhere else, you have underground water tables seeping in around your buried lines.
None of these are insurmountable, but they don't make it an easy job either.
DIdn't consider tectonic movement, good points
Sincere question: we've had RC model planes and helicopters for decades.
What about "drones" (I actually don't know if there is a difference; that's just the word I hear) is uniquely concerning to the FAA and the general public?
What about "drones" (I actually don't know if there is a difference; that's just the word I hear) is uniquely concerning to the FAA and the general public?
Simply: it took skill to pilot an RC plane or helicopter until the current round of autopilots.
The amount of time you had to expend until you could simply keep the thing in the air without crashing was large. This tended to keep the idiots out of the hobby.
With modern drones, there is no such entry barrier. Any idiot can throw a drone in the air and make it go somewhere.
The amount of time you had to expend until you could simply keep the thing in the air without crashing was large. This tended to keep the idiots out of the hobby.
With modern drones, there is no such entry barrier. Any idiot can throw a drone in the air and make it go somewhere.
[deleted]
It would be interested to see how startups like SkySafe (https://www.skysafe.io/ - backed by a16z) respond to these kinds of incidents. I could see users of these startups wanting to create "no-fly" zones to protect assets of theirs such as powerlines.
I think as drones grow to become more common in our daily lives, the "Drone Security" industry will follow along.
I think as drones grow to become more common in our daily lives, the "Drone Security" industry will follow along.
Personal drones are incredibly annoying at best.
I realize they can take interesting footage and have industrial uses, but at the consumer level they are never anything beyond a loud invasive public nuisance.
I'm sure in no time at all every self-obsessed youth will have a little selfie drone following them around broadcasting live too. Who would have predicted the future would be annoying narcissism?
I realize they can take interesting footage and have industrial uses, but at the consumer level they are never anything beyond a loud invasive public nuisance.
I'm sure in no time at all every self-obsessed youth will have a little selfie drone following them around broadcasting live too. Who would have predicted the future would be annoying narcissism?
Terrorist + Drone + powerline = I'm surprised we have power at all anymore.
Temporarily knocking out power to a local area doesn't really instill terror. Maybe if we called them "nuisancists."
Love that I can find my local news on HN
I hope they find the perp and hand him a reasonable jail sentence. A few decades should do. You CANNOT fly anything within 5nm of a towered airport without first contacting their tower. This was within 3nm of KNUQ.
This time he only hit a power line. Next time he'll collide with one of those 4-engine WW2-era trainer planes they fly out if KNUQ for practice at 500AGL...
This time he only hit a power line. Next time he'll collide with one of those 4-engine WW2-era trainer planes they fly out if KNUQ for practice at 500AGL...
For anyone else who might be slightly confused (like I initially was), "nm" here means "nautical mile"[1], not "nanometer".
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile
Thank you! I was about to say, "yes, you cannot fly within 5 nanometers, due to Pauli exclusion forces..."
Are you serious that you would advocate for a multi-decade sentence for what this man did?
He could have brought down a plane on landing (moffet field flies planes low over mountain view often), cut power to a hospital, had the broken line kill someone. This action was easily more dangerous to society and those around him than driving a tank on city streets while drunk
Yes I am serious.
Yes I am serious.
You can fly a plane into a restricted airspace and get off without criminal charges. It's completely unreasonable to expect a multi-decade sentence for something like this.
I also dislike drones around people (I'm a climber, and have had a drone fly by me while navigating rock 300' off the ground), but come on.
I also dislike drones around people (I'm a climber, and have had a drone fly by me while navigating rock 300' off the ground), but come on.
You can fly a plane into a restricted airspace and get off without criminal charges.
About once every two weeks, somebody seriously violates restricted airspace in the US, and it leads to a close encounter with an F-16, F-15, or one of Homeland Security's helicopters. They will be forced to land. So far, the USAF hasn't had to shoot down anybody, but general aviation pilots who've been intercepted report it is a scary experience. Once they're on the ground, they will be detained and interrogated by law enforcement.
Once it's established that they're not a terrorist, the FAA takes over. There's usually a check ride with an FAA examiner before they get to fly again. A $10,000 fine is normal. A suspension or revocation of the pilot's license is possible. For a second violation, likely.
Current enforcement policy, from AOPA: [1]
[1] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/december/p...
About once every two weeks, somebody seriously violates restricted airspace in the US, and it leads to a close encounter with an F-16, F-15, or one of Homeland Security's helicopters. They will be forced to land. So far, the USAF hasn't had to shoot down anybody, but general aviation pilots who've been intercepted report it is a scary experience. Once they're on the ground, they will be detained and interrogated by law enforcement.
Once it's established that they're not a terrorist, the FAA takes over. There's usually a check ride with an FAA examiner before they get to fly again. A $10,000 fine is normal. A suspension or revocation of the pilot's license is possible. For a second violation, likely.
Current enforcement policy, from AOPA: [1]
[1] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/december/p...
I think there should be a serious punishment but lengthy jail time may not be the best answer. I would fully support some period of house arrest, lengthy community service, and whopping big fines.
In the one incident I'm aware of an operator crashed his drone at the Seattle Pride Parade, striking a woman in the head. He received a $500 fine and a 30 day jail sentence. The city attorney was aiming for 90 days of jail time.
I mean, hopefully the bird-proofing on those planes is enough to keep a drone from stopping the engine. Otherwise we need to outlaw birds.
By your logic, absolutely any sort of traffic violation should be good for at least 5 years in prison. You're being ridiculous.
You sound very passionate. "A few decades should do" to what? Make an example out of them? For restorative justice? To get back at them? To keep society safe from them?
Surely you don't think a prison sentence is warranted for a nonviolent offense such as this? Maybe if he had flown the drone with the intent to hit a plane in that airfield, that might be a different story. But more likely, he may have just not known the law, or realized he was still in the offending zone.
That’s like saying we should lock people up who drive >15 mph over some speed limit that they didn't notice (which is also breaking the law). “This time he only hit a power line. Next time he’ll collide with a bus full of children.”
That’s like saying we should lock people up who drive >15 mph over some speed limit that they didn't notice (which is also breaking the law). “This time he only hit a power line. Next time he’ll collide with a bus full of children.”
Its a little different here. He was clearly being exceedingly reckless, and power outages cost lives all the time.
Jail is probably excessive, a very hefty fine and a ban from flying drones again seems more appropriate to me.
Jail is probably excessive, a very hefty fine and a ban from flying drones again seems more appropriate to me.
From what I've seen the distance is measured in regular miles [1,2]. Also, I'm not sure what him hitting the power line has anything to do with contacting the airports. Even if he had contacted them, they can only tell him no if they think he would "endanger the safety of the airspace" [3]. So if he had called, he could have just said he'd be flying at a nearby park. Additionally, most of the airports I call are totally clueless (ex: someone told me I couldn't fly a drone within 35 miles of DC - completely not true), and the FAA doesn't even provide a way to contact them. I had to download 3rd party apps to find this information. This guy messed up, but the FAA has created a bunch of complex rules that are hard to follow and provide little benefit.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/b4ufly/media/UAS_B4UFLY... [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions/ [3] https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/b4ufly/media/UAS_B4UFLY... [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions/ [3] https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
This is timely:
https://xkcd.com/1846/
https://xkcd.com/1846/
I bet 10 bucks that this gets written in to a Silicon Valley episode this season.
Probably next season. This season's already been shot.
So, you just blew an easy ten bucks... ;-)
We have a bunch of drones in the title cartoon thing...
It is absurd that in the US in 2017 this kind of damage can be caused by flying a relatively cheap device too close to power infrastructure. For the cost of a large-scale terrorist attack (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/06/25/325240653/h...), a group of people could shut down a lot of public infrastructure in a lot of metropolitan areas, causing a lot of mayhem, and likely get away with it.
This seems like the kind of critical weakness of infrastructure that the current administration is supposed to be focusing on fixing.