Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Brahette t1_j20u983 wrote

The other one was CBS3 (as usual) - hovering near the hospital but they both just left. No idea what for

1

gnartato t1_j216m7e wrote

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

hereagain1011 t1_j21pr4w wrote

Is this a domestic terrorist attack like the other attacks on power stations?

1

thearctican t1_j21z33l wrote

Yes. There were helicopters flying in that area.

0