Re:Researchers say FAA is overblowing risk posed by small dr...
by darpa_escapee on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @12:12AM
(#11294956)
I'd argue the safety threat is greater for a helicopter's passengers when both the operator and the amateurs are trying to reach the same target.
I'd also argue that the ability to navigate that 3D space competently doesn't exist from a fixed point at a distance by an amateur. Especially in an emergency situation, especially if there is limited visibility due to smoke.
They were in a dangerous situation. The uncertainty makes it an inherently dangerous situation.
Drones are no inherently dangerous, no one is arguing that. Drones can create inherently dangerous situations, however. This was one.
Re:Researchers say FAA is overblowing risk posed by small dr...
by CaptainZapp on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @05:53AM
(#11296107)
The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison.
Here's an interesting (if rivetting) read what can go wrong when a plane deviates from it's assigned path and height
My problem is not with the judgment call; my problem is with the fact that their judgment call is being used as evidence that they were in danger. As you yourself point out, nobody really knows how dangerous the situation was. Extreme uncertainty makes conservative action reasonable, but it doesn't make drones inherently dangerous.
It would be nice to get some laws on the books to eliminate the uncertainty. My fear is that the laws will lean absurdly on the side of caution; an analogy would be putting a literal tin-foil-hatter in charge of the FCC.