Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vice)   Search-and-rescue group: "Hey, these drones are a great way to help find missing people." FAA: "Nnnnnnnnnno"   (motherboard.vice.com) divider line 47
    More: Asinine, Federal Aviation Administration, rescue group, illegal operation, resource allocation, model aircraft, Texas EquuSearch, aviation safety  
•       •       •

6429 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2014 at 6:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-08 05:31:57 PM  
It does seem logical.
 
2014-04-08 05:33:39 PM  
Domestic spying: Sure thing.

Looking for lost people in a survival situation: fark that.
 
2014-04-08 06:23:13 PM  
CIA: Hey, these drones are a great way to help find "missing people. "

FAA: I endorse this product or service.
 
2014-04-08 06:23:49 PM  
Incorporate a Not for Profit.
Do whatever you want.
Not Commercial Use.
Next.
 
2014-04-08 06:24:11 PM  
Such limited usage that you might as well keep the infrared cameras at some regional S&R hq and ring up some guy with a Skyhawk.
 
2014-04-08 06:24:49 PM  
As someone who was just flying a drone around today as part of my work, I find this interesting. The FAA is beginning to lose any legs they stood on the subject. They're rapidly falling behind the technology.
 
2014-04-08 06:26:42 PM  
Hey now!  Let's stick to firing missiles from them at brown people.  That's the American way.
 
2014-04-08 06:27:19 PM  
I got bored one paragraph in but I'll loosely assume safety and security were the issues for denial of use.  Don't you feel safer and more secure now?
 
2014-04-08 06:28:04 PM  

real_headhoncho: Domestic spying: Sure thing.

Looking for lost people in a survival situation: fark that.


Just playing devil's advocate, but I would assume the FAA prefers ANYONE not packing all kinds of licenses, gear, and filed flight plans not be in the air.  They're currently fighting the tide because while private pilots of ultralights and helicopters were rare (because it's expensive) drones can be cheap enough for a helluva lot of hobby fliers and small-timers to be filling the skies and making hell out of navigation and tracking.

Of course they're still fighting against the inevitable progress of technology and pretty much shiat outta luck if they think they'll win.  What they SHOULD be doing is trying to set up a massive real-time network connected to the internet showing air-traffic and linking air-traffic control and bucking for the massive amount of funding necessary to do that, all the while crying crocodile tears about how the mean ol' judiciary won't just let them ground all those out-of-control small time drone pilots.

Then again maybe that's what they're doing, I don't follow things that closely.
 
2014-04-08 06:30:10 PM  
I think the FAA is feeling some butt hurt since every other federal agency is issuing arbitrary rules but when they try it with "drones" they get sued.
 
2014-04-08 06:31:16 PM  
27.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-08 06:36:03 PM  

hitmanric: I got bored one paragraph in but I'll loosely assume safety and security were the issues for denial of use.  Don't you feel safer and more secure now?


Wrong.

Simply the fact that the FAA has made up some rules that aren't legally binding regulations under their charter or backed by any law.
 
2014-04-08 06:37:31 PM  

MrSteve007: As someone who was just flying a drone around today as part of my work, I find this interesting. The FAA is beginning to lose any legs they stood on the subject. They're rapidly falling behind the technology.


I wonder if they share office space with the RIAA or the MPAA.
 
2014-04-08 06:39:05 PM  
I work on the local county Search and Rescue team. People can get lost in some God forsaken country. Some of it is dangerous or inaccessible to search. We often have to use a helicopters or fixed wing aircraft to search. A drone sounds ideal, no risk to a pilot, far lower cost, and the drone can always be available something not always true with other air assets. Search and Rescue operates always considering a search to be an emergency, saving time can mean saving a life.
FAA can suck it. If it was one of their loved ones lost they would want every possible method to be used.
 
2014-04-08 06:39:45 PM  
Drones to save lives? Not on the FAA's watch! Why, the very notion...
 
2014-04-08 06:46:54 PM  
Unregulated drone flight deaths: 0?
FAA regulated flight deaths: 50,000+?
 
2014-04-08 06:49:59 PM  

ZzeusS: Incorporate a Not for Profit.
Do whatever you want.
Not Commercial Use.
Next.


Not so much. "Not for profit" does not mean "not commercial." Ask Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross.
 
2014-04-08 06:51:28 PM  
Yeah, "bird strike" has never been a problem, so let's sit back and wait for "drone strike" and watch not-so-Sully auger in with 200 passengers when SAR hero's new toy gets sucked into an engine during climbout. Only then should the FAA get involved.
 
2014-04-08 06:51:58 PM  
Makes me wonder if the FAA would have been around when Orvile and Wilbur were testing flight, if they would have ever got off the ground.
 
2014-04-08 06:52:12 PM  
There is a reason that for many years the FAA has been known as Flaming Assholes Association.
 
2014-04-08 06:55:26 PM  

ZzeusS: Incorporate a Not for Profit.
Do whatever you want.
Not Commercial Use.
Next.


It's probably an outright Non-Profit with donations to it being tax deductible.
 
2014-04-08 06:57:49 PM  
Petty bureaucrats trying to expand their empire in all ways, all the time. Basically acting like bureaucrats. The FAA doesn't have the right to regulate small remote controlled planes and helicopters, but that's not going to stop them from trying because they desperately need for there to be more authority in the petty empire so that there can be more funding in the petty empire.
 
2014-04-08 06:59:57 PM  

Yuri Pulsev: Yeah, "bird strike" has never been a problem, so let's sit back and wait for "drone strike" and watch not-so-Sully auger in with 200 passengers when SAR hero's new toy gets sucked into an engine during climbout. Only then should the FAA get involved.


A restriction about flying right around airports is actually within the FAA's jurisdiction.  Outside of airports drones don't fly high enough for this to be a worry.
 
2014-04-08 07:02:02 PM  
The best part is that the FAA is using a directive that the courts have just told them they can not use anymore.  It would seem that regulatory agencies just can't make up laws anymore.  Who knew?
 
2014-04-08 07:03:41 PM  

Yuri Pulsev: Yeah, "bird strike" has never been a problem, so let's sit back and wait for "drone strike" and watch not-so-Sully auger in with 200 passengers when SAR hero's new toy gets sucked into an engine during climbout. Only then should the FAA get involved.


So it shouldn't be too much to ask for the FAA to go through the process to make their toothless rules into part of the real, legally binding, Federal Aviation Regulations; should it?

Of course, nobody in their right mind wants to lose their drone/model or kill a bunch of people either. Which is probably why it's never happened.
 
2014-04-08 07:13:56 PM  
Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers, so that the only real way to stop them is to catch the drone, or fire an air-to-air missile at it.  I predict that in the future, there will be FAA "Anti-drone stun drones" that will fly around hunting unlicensed airborne drones and zapping them silly.
 
2014-04-08 07:20:11 PM  
But if a drone crashes right on the border of two states, where will they bury the survivors? WHERE, FAA?!?
 
2014-04-08 07:22:18 PM  

moeburn: Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers,


Welcome to 5 years ago.
 
2014-04-08 07:22:58 PM  

moeburn: Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers, so that the only real way to stop them is to catch the drone, or fire an air-to-air missile at it.  I predict that in the future, there will be FAA "Anti-drone stun drones" that will fly around hunting unlicensed airborne drones and zapping them silly.


When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters.  They were expensive, fragile, and no one wanted to crash one.  They are the same thing, with the same price tag today.  If they do get mainstream any more than they did back then, it will be a fad, another child's toy.
 
2014-04-08 07:25:06 PM  
Why would the FAA regulate airspace in the Indian Ocean?

Ohh...wait...not THOSE missing people.

Nevermind.
 
2014-04-08 07:32:19 PM  

Some Coke Drinking Guy: The best part is that the FAA is using a directive that the courts have just told them they can not use anymore.  It would seem that regulatory agencies just can't make up laws anymore.  Who knew?


Tell that to MSHA.  They make up new rules and regulations every month, it seems. They invent them so fast, even their own inspectors can't keep track, and you can get cited today for something an inspector yesterday deemed just fine.
 
2014-04-08 07:34:41 PM  
And yet they had no problem bringing in CBP Reaper drones to try to hunt down Officer Dorner last year.

Those have a 20 meter wingspan, and will kill a lot more people when they crash than the little thing pictured in the article, even assuming they aren't carrying any explosives.
 
2014-04-08 07:38:51 PM  
highendmighty:When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters.  They were expensive, fragile, and no one wanted to crash one.  They are the same thing, with the same price tag today.  If they do get mainstream any more than they did back then, it will be a fad, another child's toy.

You really haven't kept up, have you?
 
2014-04-08 07:47:43 PM  

highendmighty: moeburn: Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers, so that the only real way to stop them is to catch the drone, or fire an air-to-air missile at it.  I predict that in the future, there will be FAA "Anti-drone stun drones" that will fly around hunting unlicensed airborne drones and zapping them silly.

When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters.  They were expensive, fragile, and no one wanted to crash one.  They are the same thing, with the same price tag today.  If they do get mainstream any more than they did back then, it will be a fad, another child's toy.


But now, tiny ARM microprocessors, digital cameras, zigbee transmitters and gyroscope inputs have gotten so cheap as to put a computer stabilized, computer controlled, camera quadcopter in the hundreds of dollars range, instead of tens of thousands.
 
2014-04-08 07:53:28 PM  

moeburn: highendmighty: moeburn: Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers, so that the only real way to stop them is to catch the drone, or fire an air-to-air missile at it.  I predict that in the future, there will be FAA "Anti-drone stun drones" that will fly around hunting unlicensed airborne drones and zapping them silly.

When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters.  They were expensive, fragile, and no one wanted to crash one.  They are the same thing, with the same price tag today.  If they do get mainstream any more than they did back then, it will be a fad, another child's toy.

But now, tiny ARM microprocessors, digital cameras, zigbee transmitters and gyroscope inputs have gotten so cheap as to put a computer stabilized, computer controlled, camera quadcopter in the hundreds of dollars range, instead of tens of thousands.


Not to mention LiPo batteries have a hell of a lot more energy density that the NiCds of yore, brushless motors are way more efficient than the old brushed can motors, GPS modules are cheap, and GSM and WiFi networks are ubiquitous.
 
2014-04-08 08:19:22 PM  

highendmighty: When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters. They were expensive, fragile, and no one wanted to crash one. They are the same thing, with the same price tag today. If they do get mainstream any more than they did back then, it will be a fad, another child's toy.

A number of main differences from a old school remote controlled aircraft:

1: Autonomous. New, and fairly cheap craft ($400) can be flown entirely without human input. You can put in GPS waypoints, altitude and start/end points and the craft will follow them to a "T" and fly back. They can be flown entirely without human intervention. Other attributes include being able to fly autonomous back to its start point if there's a communication loss from the ground station, or if battery levels are too low.
www.quadcopters.co.uk

2: Remote, first person view. For about $300 (via fatshark), you can attach a live-stream first person goggle system on a 'drone' and fly it well outside of view of your eyesight. Rigs can fly up to a mile away without issue. Max altitude on some of these units are in the 3,000' range.
2.bp.blogspot.com

3: HUD - with the first person goggles (another $80 upgrade, via an IZOD mini), you can also overlay a heads-up display information, with distance, course, altitude and waypoint information.
i.ytimg.com
These are light years ahead of old school RC airplanes of your youth. They have 3-axis stabilized gimbals and remote camera controls via head gestures. You can fly them well beyond your own vision and well into regulated airspace. Frankly, the electric powered craft only limited by batterylife for larger scale applications and payloads.

It's hard to keep up with the revolution in the industry. What would have cost me $3,000 last year - with a lot of hobbyist soldering and piecemeal is now $800 from a factory. The revisions in production craft seem to happen every 3 months now, with lots of new features and compatibility. It's a very exciting time. I hope the FAA doesn't shut down the small scale drone operations any time soon.

Took this snap this morning, as part of a construction survey video:
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
/my FPV goggles should be arriving at the end of the week!
//shot this construction survey video last week.
///I have clients clamoring for similar work, but have yet to monetize it.
 
2014-04-08 08:23:46 PM  
I will be the first to admit that I have not kept up. What, exactly, seperates a "drone" from a remote controlled airplane?

To be honest, I always thought that a "drone" was self guided/unguided, like the V2 rockets.
 
2014-04-08 08:52:10 PM  

hitmanric: I got bored one paragraph in but I'll loosely assume safety and security were the issues for denial of use.  Don't you feel safer and more secure now?


From the letter, the FAA is using more of a, "because we said so, that's why" justification. The FAA apparently thinks it can just ignore a court ruling and keep trying to make people knuckle under. Screw them.
 
2014-04-08 09:11:01 PM  

Firethorn: Yuri Pulsev: Yeah, "bird strike" has never been a problem, so let's sit back and wait for "drone strike" and watch not-so-Sully auger in with 200 passengers when SAR hero's new toy gets sucked into an engine during climbout. Only then should the FAA get involved.

A restriction about flying right around airports is actually within the FAA's jurisdiction.  Outside of airports drones don't fly high enough for this to be a worry.


Helicopters, hot air balloons and ultralights all fly from the surface to 300 feet, outside of airports, same as drones.
 
2014-04-08 09:43:13 PM  
JesseL:

Not to mention LiPo batteries have a hell of a lot more energy density that the NiCds of yore,

Yeah I don't know that this is such a good thing when it comes to remote controlled aerial vehicles.  LiPo's have this nasty bug where if you so much as dent them, scratch them, over charge them by 25mV, or pretty much look at them the wrong way, they explode in a violent fireball of doom.  This tends to make LiPo powered drones flying forest fire starters.
 
2014-04-08 11:50:08 PM  

moeburn: JesseL:

Not to mention LiPo batteries have a hell of a lot more energy density that the NiCds of yore,

Yeah I don't know that this is such a good thing when it comes to remote controlled aerial vehicles.  LiPo's have this nasty bug where if you so much as dent them, scratch them, over charge them by 25mV, or pretty much look at them the wrong way, they explode in a violent fireball of doom.  This tends to make LiPo powered drones flying forest fire starters.


There's a bit of hyperbole there. Most of the electric models flying today ar using LiPos and it's rarely any kind of a problem.

You might note that the nitromethane classically used to power model airplanes with combustion engines is a shock sensitive high explosive.

You won't see a lot of models crashing and turning into fireballs either way.
 
2014-04-09 04:12:56 AM  
So it's cool if Amazon flies drones through cities to deliver packages, but not to fly them in the backwoods to find missing people? FAIL
 
2014-04-09 05:39:28 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 07:33:39 AM  

moeburn: Pretty soon, people will have drones that they can control remotely at home from their computers, so that the only real way to stop them is to catch the drone, or fire an air-to-air missile at it.  I predict that in the future, there will be FAA "Anti-drone stun drones" that will fly around hunting unlicensed airborne drones and zapping them silly.


www.thejoypad.ch
 
2014-04-09 09:12:03 AM  
FAA doesn't want them finding some of the people that they "disappeared".
 
2014-04-09 12:43:25 PM  

MrSteve007: highendmighty: When I was a kid, drones were called remote control airplanes/helicopters. . .

It's hard to keep up with the revolution in the industry. What would have cost me $3,000 last year - with a lot of hobbyist soldering and piecemeal is now $800 from a factory. The revisions in production craft seem to happen every 3 months now, with lots of new feat ...


I appreciate your reply.  For sure all of this is definitely very cool, and admittedly the technology is even cooler - and I thank you for your information (esp. the screenshots).   I think that if they are used in a commercial arena, where a business model depends on them, then the FAA needs to set up some rules, but I agree with the rest of the people here who are scolding the FAA for making the rules up as they go along.  I think, also, we are going to see some FCC folks start to get involved, too.
Outside of commercial uses, however, I see the same price tag, the same risks to both property and individuals, and the same interested demographic as the old-school remote controllers from decades past.
Those personal user-types include: fastidious ("No-You-May-Not-Fly-My-Drone) practitioners who study and perfect technique as would a pilot; the wealthy trender who buys and crashes multiple models and finally gives up calling them stupid; and the one-time crash-and-burners who can't afford a replacement.
 
2014-04-09 02:40:42 PM  
media1.giphy.com
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report