Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation 164

Posted by samzenpus from the learning-to-fly dept.
stowie writes: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced the Consumer Drone Safety Act that looks to shore up safety features on consumer drones and the federal laws that govern them. This bill has nothing to do with the FAA's proposed rules on small commercial drones, this is all about hobbyist drones. It's looking to regulate the maximum height for flight, the weather and time-of-day conditions for flight, and any areas where flights may be prohibited. If passed, the act would require manufacturers to update existing consumer drones to meet these requirements, potentially through an automatic software update. The bill would require safety features for new consumer drones such as Geo-fencing to govern the altitude and location of flights, collision-avoidance software, and more.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation More

Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation

Comments Filter:

  • Typical Feinstein.

    • Re:Feinstein as usual (Score:4, Funny)

      by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:02PM (#49940593) Homepage

      We need a consumer protection bill consumer protection bill.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rinikusu ( 28164 )

      Yeah, fuck Feinstein. But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.

      • Re:Feinstein as usual (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:15PM (#49940701) Journal

        Here's an idea. If you get caught, you get Attempted Murder, assault and all the other charges that should apply. We already have enough laws on the books. We don't need "using a __________ " tack-on charges.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          We have to have laws because some people just can't help being dicks.

          • A law is different beast altogether, than preventing your liberty to break those laws. This is a software limit enforced by the state. Put a law in place, don't put statist controls in place.

          • Being a dick isn't against the law.

            Assholes and Dicks always skirt around the edges. Yelling at the top of your lungs, hate filled slogans laced with profanity shouldn't be against the law. On the other hand, punching that asshole in the face also shouldn't be against the law ;)

        • I think the POINT here is to add a; "Don't let the Citizen be able to do what we do, and don't let the citizen EVER have an opportunity to do something back."

          We are ruled by mutual consent. NOT asymmetrically ability of CorpGov to crush us.

          I'm not a fan of private citizens having arsenals and what chaos might ensue when an idiot adds a rocket launcher on a repurposed drone. But that idiot can also just use the stupid rocket launcher.

          But I'm going to say; "I want that fool with a rocket launcher on my team i

      • Re:Feinstein as usual (Score:4, Insightful)

        by exomondo ( 1725132 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:36PM (#49940879)

        But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.

        This is why these laws happen, morons who can't grasp the concept that just because you have a drone that can fly anywhere doesn't mean you have the right to fly that drone anywhere, they actually need to be told that.

      • Yes, but liberty and constitutional republics.democracies have always come with a known cost/risk. It is a signifier of respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon. It is a citizens right to operate within a law or not. (Civil Disobedience). What she is asking for is akin to statist control. We don't need controls when we already have a fully functional judicial system of laws and penalties.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          A glaring example of a logical regulation to apply to drones, no exposed blades because this http://www.theguardian.com/mus... [theguardian.com]. Simple legal requirement that will substantially reduce the potential for harm. Then there is flying over other people's properties without their permission.

          The more drones in the hands of idiots the more accidents that will happen, Reasonable regulations are required to limit drones and strictly regulate their use. Want to play with one, keep it within the bounds of your own pr

          • Then there is flying over other people's properties without their permission.

            Except, of course, if you're a big corporation and the FAA gives you license to fly wherever you want. And that's going to happen with FAA regulation of drones.

          • Simple legal requirement that will substantially reduce the potential for harm.

            And something that also impacts both the aerodynamics and weight of the device.

            No. It is unlikely to kill anyone, and we allow far more dangerous devices. Quit trying to legislate to protect stupidity, as it only creates every more stupid people.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

          It is a signifier of respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon.

          Have you had a look at your fellow citizens? Have you seen how they behave? We've got the most violent developed country in the world, and you expect "respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon"?

          Half of Americans believe in ghosts. 38% believe in UFOs and 80% believe the government is covering up evidence of UFOs. Half believe climate change is

      • What's needed is *education* -- not regulation.

        Most people don't deliberately endanger the lives of others just for fun -- most do it out of ignorance of the risks and potential outcomes.

        Just as the rates of smoking have dropped enormously since we began educating folks as to the dangers -- so we need to educate the neophyte and ignorant drone operators as to their responsibilities and obligations in respect to the public's safety.

        The situation regarding "near misses" is a *lot* more complex than most of th

        • And don't forget almost every complaint that the "anti-drone" evangelists bring to the table could also apply to kites, balloons, and Frisbees.

          I haven't heard any complaints from people that the neighbor is violating his property lines because some kid is flying a kite over his yard.

          ~~

      • An airliner on approach or in the patter is not going to see a typical consumer drone unless it hits the cockpit. They are doing 200MPH in the pattern and at least 100 - 120 when landing. Drones are too small and you are not going to see just one. Hell, it's hard enough to spot light aviation aircraft.

        The control freaks just want a reason to restrict these things for whatever reason...knee jerk reaction to people being able to do what the Government does...watch others from the sky.

        Then there's Diane F. Th

        • So you don't think a drone sucked into a jet engine is a problem? Isn't that why they keep falcons at airports, to keep birds away?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sycodon ( 149926 )

            I don't think there is an issue of drones being sucked into engines. Has it happened? Has a drone even hit an airliner?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      She thought somebody was being a peeping-tom with a drone one time at her house. When the guy with the camera saw her through the window, he lost control of his bowels and also the drone. She has been trying to get rid of them ever since... except the ones that kill brown people over seas of course. True story. Look it up for yourself.
      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/senator-dianne-feinstein-encounter-with-drone-technology-privacy-surveillance-102233.html

    • yup, being the grownup that stops self-important idiots from flying their toys into other peoples areas and endangering many of them.

  • What does this do... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @06:56PM (#49940519) Journal

    .... to "simple" drones, that don't have altitude sensors or gps? Both of my daughter's drones have simple leveling sensors and that's pretty much it. Would unsophisticated drones be illegal by this bill?

    • .... to "simple" drones, that don't have altitude sensors or gps? Both of my daughter's drones have simple leveling sensors and that's pretty much it. Would unsophisticated drones be illegal by this bill?

      It's a Feinstein bill. So of course yes.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Drone regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCreeep ( 794716 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:04PM (#49940607)
    Can we regulate the usage of stupid "share" buttons on slashdot?
    • Indeed, sir.

      You never have to use them.

      That's way better regulation than the consumer drones will likely get from this legislation.

      • No but now in place of a nice and functional "Read 123 more comments" there's a useless share button. The number of comments is relegated to a bubble to the right of the story title. This redesign makes it so that the icons (including the bubble) block the title so I can't see it fully.

    • Can we regulate the usage of stupid "share" buttons on slashdot?

      Doubtful. I think the new regime wants to make this the geek FB.

      Gods help us.

    • The 'share' buttons are indeed ugly and annoying - enough so that I immediately went looking for comments like this. But I could live with the stupid, useless buttons if the number of comments was beside them instead of all the way on the other side of my screen where it totally fucks up the flow. The dipshits who are trying to "improve" Slashdot really have no clue about how people use the site.

  • Goodbye to Affordable Drones (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:22PM (#49940751)

    Say good bye to affordable drones for hobbyists. Now all drones will have to have a gps module, an altimeter, a microcontroller, and a microprocessor capable of processing all this, extensive software to handle all of this data, .... .

    Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by koan ( 80826 )

      Oh please every one of my multirotors already has that in them, the only ones that don't are 250 class racers.
      None of that stuff cost much, but avoidance is likely to be expensive.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.

      The fact that someone will go to jail for life is little consolation for the hundreds of people who died because a drone with a large battery is ingested into a jet engine on takeoff or landing causing a catastrophic failure. We have many laws that limit dangerous activity before it harms or kills someone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        New legislation, All geese must be cyborged immediately with GPS, geo-fencing and collision avoidance software.

        Perhaps the problem is aircraft that are too damned fragile to handle an event with a non-zero natural occurrence without killing people.

        Don't forget to ban squall lines and hail. More than one aircraft has gone down after the engines ingested too much water and hail.

        So far, no aircraft has been brought down by a drone strike. In fact, I know of no report of a drone strike of any kind.

        • All geese must be cyborged immediately with GPS

          We control the things we can control. Natural events are uncontrollable so we have to deal with them. Events caused by people can be legislated against. For example we do not have laws against animals attacking humans but we do have laws against humans attacking humans.

          Perhaps the problem is aircraft that are too damned fragile to handle an event with a non-zero natural occurrence without killing people.

          Aircraft are designed to be as strong as possible but still light enough to be viable. It is a trade-off. Build an aircraft strong enough to handle all situations and it would not get off the ground.

          So far, no aircraft has been brought down by a drone strike.

          We know a drone ingested into an engine can

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            A near miss is another phrase for not a strike. We know a lot of things ingested into a jet engine can be a problem. We haven't banned the lot of them because there haven't been incidents. Kinda like we haven't had incidents with drones.

            We have had RC aircraft for decades without a problem. Currently, the number of aircraft brought down by a drone strike is the same as the number brought down by catapulted footwear.

            It is probably prudent to limit drone flights near major airports, but since we already do ha

            • We know a lot of things ingested into a jet engine can be a problem.

              What man made objects that can be encountered in the air and have a large enough mass/explosive capacity to bring down a jet have not been regulated. If you are thinking private rockets/weather balloons they are regulated. Any such flights need to be cleared with the FAA before launching.

              We have had RC aircraft for decades without a problem.

              The differences between RC aircraft and drones are a follows;
              1. RC aircraft generally were line of sight only. That restricted the range.
              2. Battery technology has greatly increases the flight time of drones.
              3. Drones have s

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                Haven't you seen liquid fueled RC planes? They even have jets. They can fly quite a long time. It's not hard to maintain line of sight when you're flying high enough to possibly intercept an aircraft.

                You seem rather fond of the phrase near miss. Most likely because there have never been any hits. Why do you insist on legislating away non-problems at other's expense?

                • Haven't you seen liquid fueled RC planes? They even have jets.

                  Yes I have. They are also quite expensive and difficult to pilot which restricts the numbers. There have been few if any encounters between liquid fuelled rc planes and aircraft therefore it is not a problem. There have been an increasing number of encounters between drones and aircraft therefore there is a problem.

                  It's not hard to maintain line of sight when you're flying high enough to possibly intercept an aircraft.

                  That depends on the size of the drone. It is also only very close to airports where there are already regulations. Keeping control with the average RC aircraft over 1000 feet away (without a remo

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by sjames ( 1099 )

                    Look carefully at the reports. Note that most are inconsistant with the sort of drones flown by hobbiests. For example, claims that they are closing at high speed from the side, or looks like an F4.

                    I note too that none of these drones seem to be falling out of the sky in spite of supposedly flying close enough to get hit with the significant turbulance in the wake of a commercial jet. I find it a bit suspect that these 'drones' are so readily identified as such in spite of being about goose sized and the sp

                    • Now I get it. You think that your internet based analysis of the severity of the danger is better than the pilots in the cockpit and the experts in the aviation field. Sorry but I do not agree with you.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      Your disagreement is devastating, let me tell you!

                      I haven't seen PILOTS proposing draconian restrictions on drones, just a non-pilot legislator that wants to ban everything but NSA spying anyway.

                    • Pilots are the ones reporting the near misses. If they didn't think it was an issue they would not be reporting them.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      They're reporting near misses, but near misses by WHAT?

                      Before the big drone scare, they might well have seen the very same thing but not reported it because it would either be a bird or the dreaded UFO report.

                    • Again you analysis is not necessarily better that the pilots'.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      And it's not necessarily worse.

                    • I will give the analysis from the person on the spot much more credence than the analysis from an internet "expert" who has incomplete information.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      Excellent. I guess you're a loch Ness and Bigfoot believer as well. After all, there are eye witness accounts and their analysis will be much better since they were right there.

                    • Excellent. I guess you're a Loch Ness and Bigfoot believer as well.

                      Eye witness accounts from untrained observers are very different that eye witness accounts from pilots whose very life is dependant on their observation skills and ability to identify threats.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sjames ( 1099 )

                      So how much training do you suppose they got on identifying hobby drones when they were learning to fly?

    • Say good bye to affordable drones for hobbyists. Now all drones will have to have a gps module, an altimeter, a microcontroller, and a microprocessor capable of processing all this, extensive software to handle all of this data, .... .

      Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.

      I dunno, sounds like some nifty hardware to void the warrantee on. Hey, the 'good stuff' isn't gonna come outta Colorado by itself, ya know...

    • So when some dick flies a drone into a police chopper or whatever and the chopper crashes; we then go and tell the victims that we had to wait until this event before legislation was passed?

      • A bird does the same if not more damage than a drone does/would. That is for a drone under 55 lbs. How many drones do you see in that weight class?

    • Now all drones will have to have a gps module, an altimeter, a microcontroller, and a microprocessor capable of processing all this, extensive software to handle all of this data

      Even the cheapest drones have all that already. As for the microprocessor capable of processing all this, well mine does all that an way more on a tiny little 8bit AVR. This is not a complicated task or very advanced tech.

    • Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.

      Or require a simple license (like a fishing license) to fly a drone.

      A one-page written test which demonstrates whether or not you know your ass from your elbow and the likelihood that you will use the drone to peek in the window of the lady who lives across the street would also be nice.

      You want to fly a drone on your own property? Have at it. You want to fly it in public, then let's see

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Open Source Bitch. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:42PM (#49940927)

    This is why the Flight Controller I use is Open Source. Control mongers like Diane Feinstein have no say in the software. This is the same lady pushing for back doored encryption. There is nothing in the interest of citizens that runs through her veins. One day she will attack open source as an enemy of the state.

  • >"Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation"

    They are not "near misses" they are "near hits". Near misses means something hit but nearly missed hitting. I don't understand why this is side widely misunderstood. I suppose "just missed" or "just misses" would be an appropriate alternative if one simply must use the word "miss" in the phrase.

    • They are not "near misses" they are "near hits". Near misses means something hit but nearly missed hitting.

      You seem to be assuming that "near miss" means "nearly miss" as opposed to, say "nearby miss". Your assumption is all well and good, but it's not a law of nature or anything....

      • >"You seem to be assuming that "near miss" means "nearly miss" as opposed to, say "nearby miss". Your assumption is all well and good, but it's not a law of nature or anything...."

        True. But it seems like a far more likely use than what you suggest. Near, nearly, nears, nearer, nearest are all essentially different states of the same word. Where "nearby" is tacking on a preposition such as, on, at, over, under, around, etc onto "near" which changes the meaning significantly.

        • >"You seem to be assuming that "near miss" means "nearly miss" as opposed to, say "nearby miss". Your assumption is all well and good, but it's not a law of nature or anything...."

          True. But it seems like a far more likely use than what you suggest. Near, nearly, nears, nearer, nearest are all essentially different states of the same word. Where "nearby" is tacking on a preposition such as, on, at, over, under, around, etc onto "near" which changes the meaning significantly.

          The issue isn't the implied tacking of a preposition. It's the difference between a near acting as an adjective or as part of a compound noun. In order for the phrase to act as you want it to, it would have to be a compound noun acting as a single unit (which is illustrated more clearly when you properly hyphenate them together): a near-miss == an almost-miss == a hit.

          That's not an absurd construction; sometimes near is used this way, e.g. a near disaster was nearly disastrous. In this usage, near doe

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

      The term is well understood by every English speaking person in the world but you, apparently. What does that say about you?

  • Let's try this for a law (Score:3, Funny)

    by kbsoftware ( 1000159 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @08:47PM (#49941315)
    Here's a novel idea. How about instead of creating laws for drone manufacturers to try and protect everyone from stupid people how about we create laws to deal with the stupid people. Here's how it works, clean slate everyone can buy a drone if they wish. Once someone does something stupid like fly your drone too close to planes/helicopters, of fly your drone in a crowded area and so forth then that person has their drone taken away, they are charged accordingly and are put on a permanent banned list and never allowed to buy another drone again. Even better let's make a stupid people list so we can stop or help stupid people from continuing to make stupid decisions.

    • Once someone does something stupid like fly your drone too close to planes/helicopters, of fly your drone in a crowded area and so forth then that person has their drone taken away, they are charged accordingly and are put on a permanent banned list and never allowed to buy another drone again. Even better let's make a stupid people list so we can stop or help stupid people from continuing to make stupid decisions.

      As president of the ADA (American Drone Association), I have to tell you, we have a right to bear and deploy drones. You and your jack booted liberal thugs can get my drone when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.

      • So are you saying you are one of the stupid people who would fly your drone in an irresponsible and dangerous way? I don't live in America but from what I hear the police there have zero problems with the "cold dead hands"

        • Re:Let's try this for a law (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @09:15AM (#49944355)

          So are you saying you are one of the stupid people who would fly your drone in an irresponsible and dangerous way?

          Oh man, Talk about not getting the reference. Since you aren't American, we'll not hold that against you.

          Google National Rifle Association, and you'll figure that one out. I was just doing a little bit of satire.

          I don't live in America but from what I hear the police there have zero problems with the "cold dead hands"

          You gather wrong. One of the oddest things I've ever seen is how many people who don't live in America seem to think we are a nation soley comprised of laid-off people living in abject poverty, and are target practice for the police, while the wealthy 1 percenters watch our demise with glee. Everyone is racist, members of a militia, far right Christian cultists, and spend all our time watching reality TV while padding our 400 pound frames with Big Gulps and Cheetos.

          When in fact, it's rather nice here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AaronW ( 33736 )

      Tell that to the families of people killed when a large airplane crashes because some idiot flew his drone in the flight path. It's only a matter of time. I'm sure it will comfort them when the idiot is arrested, if they can find out who was piloting it. While there are plenty of responsible people flying drones, there are also plenty of idiots who ignore the existing laws.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        I would, but there aren't any. They'll just have to wait in line with the friends and family of people killed by a soup ladle wielding maniac.

        More people have been killed with a butter knife than with a drone. Do you support butter knife control?

    • How do you plan on enforcing this blacklist when you can buy a quadcopter on eBay from a seller in China? Who certainly doesn't have access to the blacklist and, almost as certainly, doesn't care.

  • Share?! What happened to "read more" link? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by caseih ( 160668 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @08:55PM (#49941357)

    Umm, so why does Dice think we need a "share" button in place of a simple link to read the articles and comments? I realize I can click on the title of the article, and I found out while hovering the mouse cursor that I can click on the little comment bubble. But neither of those actions is obvious or discoverable. Please bring back the "read more" link! Come on guys. Thought you'd learned your lesson with the beta site fiasco. For a while I thought slashdot had leveled out, but now it's going downhill again.

  • I'd like Diane Feinstein to be geo-fenced to keep her grubby little NSA-sucking
    encryption-hating lying hands off of issues that are over her altitude or too far
    for her eyesight to comprehend.

    Geo-fencing for worthless corrupt senators. Now there's an answer.

    Leave the drones alone. They are innocent of any wrongdoing.

    E

  • This is as ignorant as they come. (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheRealQuestor ( 1750940 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @10:18PM (#49941739)
    So only multirotors are in the sights. What about Fixed Wing [airplanes/jets/etc], they can do pretty much the exact same thing as Multirotors [I REFUSE to call MRs Drones as drone kill people, no multirotor has so far killed anyone!] And what about Helicopters. Again can do the same as pretty much any Multirotor except they HAVE killed people [nytimes.com] and yet no mention of them.

    The problem is not the technology, it's the idiots who go buy a DJI with 0 idea of what they are doing and lose control and fly in places they should not.

    The media then plays on the fears of the average joe who doesn't know the difference between a "Drone" after seeing images like this
    preditor drone [article36.org] and this Multirotor [imgur.com]

    I build multirotors for people all the time, I fly them all the time, and I have yet to hurt anyone or anything other than the multirotor itself.

    • Multi-rotors are Helicopters by definition. The point stands though that a similarly sized traditional single-rotor RC helicopter is going to do a fair bit more damage if it hit someone than a multi-rotor - there is a bit more momentum in that blade. Furthermore "drone" is a colloquialism.

      Neither term indicates the vehicle is A) autonomous or remotely-piloted, and B) armed/combative or unarmed

      As you elude to, the media and politicians have no respect for the distinction, so what hope does the average punter

  • As almost nobody (excluding the president himself) is as popular of a boogeyman here on slashdot as Feinstein, I know just from the first sentence that slashdot wants me to hate this bill! Thank you, now I don't have to worry about its content or intent, as you've already told me it is pure evil. I can go back to reading the other drudge report now instead of reading further into the summaries on the front page of this one.

  • Whirling blades of death!!! (Score:3)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @05:53AM (#49943465) Homepage Journal

    Every day, thousands of unlicensed people operate machines that amount to no more than whirling blades of death. These machines are powered by the distilled essence of the dead no less. They have a long history of maiming and killing the innocent, even children. You can buy these infernal machines with no background check, no license, not even an ID. The sellers of these contraptions aren't even required to be licensed.

    We need to control these so-called "lawn mowers" NOW, before they kill us all!

  • When some sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to fine me for flying my UAV that finds a missing child alive and well.
    "Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the child I just located. Now YOU explain to them why what I just did is a problem."

    Or better yet, I can't wait for the day when said sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to stop me from using my UAV to locate a missing child.
    "Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the missing child. Now YOU explain to them why we can't use every method to locate the

  • How will this keep my craft within spec? I have several that don't have GPS nor do they have onboard flight controllers, technically they are drones as defined in a dictionary.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close