Drone Maker DJI Adds Technology to Limit Where Its Machines Can Fly
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
Mythbusters more or less proved the consumer models are basically harmless to humans and couldn't break the skin.
As always something new comes along and people are terrified. It's our stupid nature.
A commercial quadcopter motor typically runs at 1000KV, meaning that it spins at 1000 RPM per Volt. Most batteries are 12-14 volts.
Even for little plastic bits, if they're spinning at 12,000RPM, theres a lot of kinetic energy behind them.
I'll admit I was surprised to see that, indeed, they were able to puncture through that poor soul's ballistic gel neck and sever the "aorta."
0: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/drone-d...
They only "proved" it couldn't break the skin. They didn't prove it was harmless... if one slams into your head, you're going to be on the ground.
Often the injury concerns come not from propeller blade cuts, but a lithium battery getting dropped on someone's head from 200ft when it loses charge unexpectedly.
I have a $50 UDI U818A and (with the plastic frame) if I cut the power, it falls no faster than a leaf. It actually does the same 'wobble' and lands softly on the ground.
Larger multicopters, like the DJI ones in the article, are much heavier. About 5lbs or so. They fall fast and hard.
(A secondary issue would be a drone getting sucked into plane's engine intake. I don't know if it would break the engine, but it would definitely take away some of it's extremely expensive life time.)
As for us pedestrians, a cheap drone with plastic rotor blades (it's a different with carbon fiber; I've heard of cases where old-school RC helicopters chopped off fingers) may not damage me on impact, but getting near-missed by a fast-moving, loud and non-ballistic object can freak one out, making one drop stuff they're carrying, fall off one's bike or run into traffic. And speaking of traffic, I wouldn't want to see what happens when you distract a driver with a drone on a busy road.
It still doesn't solve the problem of cheap drones (i.e. those without GPS), though I'm not sure if they are an issue near airports.
Not only about rogue individuals launching programmable drones to do malicious things, with no accountability (first time robots would be out in public with access to so many people)
But also just simple failure rates and gravity
Do you foresee the skies blackened by Drones? All these issues have existed in RC planes for years and I'd say they're only slightly more common.
RC planes are remote controlled at least. This is the first time we have autonomous robots among humans.
There was a talk at defcon this year by a Chinese researcher (I forget her name) where she A) spoofed the GPS signal so that a GPS-restricted copter (which I guess already exists in China) could fly in a no-fly zone and B) convinced a bunch of copters flying in a park that they were, in fact, suddenly in a no-fly zone, and so they promptly crashed.
It is not the job of my machines to police my behaviour on behalf of the government. If a machine is physically capable of doing something, there should always be a way for me to do it. A warning (e.g. A restricted airspace alert) is fine, but the technology should not presume to override my commands based on its (easily confused) interpretation of the law. Users should control machines, not the other way around.
My opinion is that the vast majority of the issues are caused by people who buy a drone off the shelf and take it up as high as it can go on their first flight.
This move will help stop general folks who have no idea about the rules and regulations from flying where they should not.
It's not going to stop the folks that (arguably) should know better, but it's an exellent start.
But generally, I agree. An easy to circumvent lock seems like a good idea. Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage).
This is exactly it. I'm 1000% okay with this. I hope that the eventual DOT regulations are following this line of thought.
Robots will put everyone out of a job because only a certain few will be allowed to program robots that could hypothetically commit criminal acts. Writing a program for a drone or a self-driving car will require the same level of scrutiny as developing a medical device or aviation flight control systems.
That's the problem with our robotic future: the technology will be controlled by a priesthood of highly regulated experts that work for large corporations because the technologies are considered too dangerous to be left in the hands of average people.
I was in the San Juan islands doing some aerial photography with a DJI Phantom III. On Orcas island I unknowingly setup next to an airport. It was a very small airport behind a treed hill, so I didn't realize where it was. The drone considered it a no-fly zone and refused to take off.
So I consider it unlikely that gigantic Logan airport isn't in the system, while tiny Orcas Island airport is in the system.
Say a rich tenet in a NYC penthouse doesn't want any drones flying around his building. How do you enact a geofence around his building and then enforce that?
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/lightcense-drone-identifi...
Instead of the standard alphanumerical plates that are affixed to cars, drones would be equipped with a set of bright, multicolored LED lights. The lights would flash in a unique sequence that would correlate to the owner. A smartphone app would identify the pattern and search the database for the operator the vehicle is registered to.
pretty ingenious if you ask me.
Out of curiosity, what does it do if GPS is unavailable? From what I've heard, jamming GPS is pretty easy.
You'd lose manufacturer recourse in case something goes wrong.
This is doable even now.