Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gnartato t1_j216m7e wrote

Reply to comment by DippyMagee555 in Helicopters flying over Bryn Mawr area? by oodja

I know there's the in-sight rule. But how expensive is it to have a network of drone operators in cars on shift 24/7 in the metro area compared to literal jet fuel, a helicopter, and maintenance?

I think once one channel is bold enough the rest will never look back.

3

DippyMagee555 t1_j21a1pf wrote

I'm no drone enthusiast and that may show through here, but I don't get why there isn't an exception for major media outlets and just hold them responsible for any damages caused by a drone.

It's not like the average drone user has a helicopter in their back yard as an alternative. The rules shouldn't be the same because the noise/pollution of a helicopter is something that should be disincentivized. If a news organization can afford a helicopter, they can afford the insurance necessary to cover damages caused by their drones.

3

gnartato t1_j21aevy wrote

We're probably less than 10 years from all drones having software or avoid collisions with the ground, existing buildings, or other drone participating in whatever system they develop for this. A real time network of existing things in the air basically.

−1

Trafficsigntruther t1_j21o22b wrote

We’re negative years away from this. Google drone obstacle avoidance.

2

gnartato t1_j2b7h9r wrote

We have a network that all drones tap into that give real time on where they are fast enough for collision avoidance?

I think you're referring to standalone collision avoidance....

1

Trafficsigntruther t1_j2bcr8q wrote

> I think you're referring to standalone collision avoidance...

Which is more effective than the system you are describing…

1

gnartato t1_j2bgn8y wrote

If we ever want drones en mass optical/ir/radar systems will not going to be effective enough.

Either you need predefined routes or you need to know what will be in your path.

1