On May 3, 2016, a man from Ohio who
was flying his small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) near Cape Marco, FL crashed
into a condominium, (Video: After drone crash, Marco council nixes ordinance,
2016). “The owners of the condo where
the drone landed, fearing they were being spied upon, were very upset by the
incident, according to a police report obtained by WBBH. Officials, however,
did not find any evidence to support that fear” (Man will not face charges
after drone crashes into Fla. high-rise condo, 2016). Furthermore the pilot was registered with the
FAA according to the article.
Additionally, in my research he was not within 5NM of an airport and
based on the video it was Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC).
The crash happened after the signal
was lost and the fail-safe was triggered for the sUAS to return home, (Video:
After drone crash, Marco council nixes ordinance, 2016). Victor Rios, a council member of the Belize,
the condominium that the sUAS crashed at, wrote in concerns: “Based upon my
experience and due to the position of the drone on the master bedroom lanai, I
believe that it was hovering just above the railing and maneuvering for better
position in an attempt to get closer - and this is when the drone hit the edge
of the railing damaging the propellers,” (Video: After drone crash, Marco council
nixes ordinance, 2016). The Ohio man was
cooperative and allowed the police chief to play the video for the council,
clearly showing that there was no intentions of spying.
The DJI Phantom 4, a newer model of
the one in the Cape Marco incident, was released early in 2016. “The Phantom 4
is equipped with an Obstacle Sensing System that constantly scans for obstacles
in from of it, allowing it to avoid collisions by going around, over or
hovering. The DJI Vision Positioning System uses ultrasound and image data to
help the aircraft maintain its current positon,” (Phantom 4 User Manual V1.2,
2016). With this new feature, I can
assume that the sUAS would not have run strait in to the condo, but makes me
wonder what might have happened? Could
it have stopped and hovered, then crashed after loosing battery life? Or tried
to go around and still crashed due to the inability to sense obstacles on
either side it? How might the issue of
spying changed if it would have stopped and hovered because of this new sensor
employed?
References
Man will not face
charges after drone crashes into Fla. high-rise condo. (2016 May 6). News
Channel 8 (WFLA). Retrieved from http://wfla.com/2016/05/06/man-will-not-face-charges-after-drone-crashes-into-fla-high-rise-condo/
Phantom 4 User
Manual V1.2. (2016 Mar). DJI.com. Retrieved from
https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_4/en/Phantom_4_User_Manual_en_v1.2_160328.pdf
Video: After
drone crash, Marco council nixes ordinance. (2016 May 6). Sun Times. Retrieved
from http://www.marcoislandflorida.com/story/news/2016/05/04/drone-crash-marco-council-nixes-ordinance/83921064/
The public perception of the drones is evident in this case. But how to prove if the intention was to spy. The drone has the technological capacity to avoid collision by detecting obstacles, but the drone at the time of the crash had lost the contact with the operator and the "return to home" had been triggered. Miguel H. Quine
ReplyDeleteIn the case, the video that was recorded was reviewed by police and they determined the intent was not to spy. The intent that I was trying to purvey, is that as new technologies emerge like DJI's Phantom 4, we need to be careful in how we employ them. If the quad in this case was a Phantom 4 and it hovered on the balcony for a few minutes while it tried to return home, would this man have been charged with spying? As a sUAS hobbyist, we need to be careful in how we utilize our tools and understand the performance and limitations of our systems. Doing things like double checking the weather and no fly zones and visiting the contingencies and implications of a lost link. For example, I own a DJI Phantom 2 Vision and you can adjust the height of the RTH profile, which this hobbyist did not do, and is very easy to overlook if you do not think about it. Like wise the public need to become more aware of how these systems work.
DeleteIn the case, the video that was recorded was reviewed by police and they determined the intent was not to spy. The intent that I was trying to purvey, is that as new technologies emerge like DJI's Phantom 4, we need to be careful in how we employ them. If the quad in this case was a Phantom 4 and it hovered on the balcony for a few minutes while it tried to return home, would this man have been charged with spying? As a sUAS hobbyist, we need to be careful in how we utilize our tools and understand the performance and limitations of our systems. Doing things like double checking the weather and no fly zones and visiting the contingencies and implications of a lost link. For example, I own a DJI Phantom 2 Vision and you can adjust the height of the RTH profile, which this hobbyist did not do, and is very easy to overlook if you do not think about it. Like wise the public need to become more aware of how these systems work.
Delete