Interview: How would YOU stop FPV abuse?

[PinkieP]

I have to write a problem-solution paper for English, and being addicted to FPV myself, the question remains: How would we stop people abusing FPV? To clarify, abuse is focused towards pilots violating restricted airspace or potentially dangerous locations, like the Phantom on the Whitehouse lawn, or the photographer who decided to fly over an active Istanbul airport and upload the music video to Youtube. DJI's Gps lock sounds like a good idea, but is limited because some airports double as RC events, and prevents pilots from testing their $3,000 quad at any local park or at their own house (like the 50 mile area around Washington.) Licenses to fly also sounds great, but will children need licenses to fly Airhogs?
Any thoughts would be great, obviously the seasoned FPV pilots won't fly dangerously, the problem lies in newer pilots who buy kits and actively ignore/ don't know to follow the rules or FAA guidelines flying over dangerous places. All thoughts welcome thanks for reading and posting!

 

[Tritium]

You might also ask yourself How would you stop abuse of ANY Technology!

Answer is YOU CAN'T!

Anything that CAN be abused HAS been and IS being abused.

Abuse is and always has been the way of imperfect man!

Thurmond

 

[flyboy10]

Sharks with freaking lasers on their heads. Obviously.

Less obviously, I think you answered your own question: it's the new pilots, most of whom are uneducated, that experience the problem (with the few experienced pilots who choose to be dill weeds). Education is key to ensuring rules aren't inadvertently broken; consequences ensure rules aren't overtly broken. Of course there will always be a few who choose to break the rules for whatever reason, just like there will always be people who drink and drive or shoot other people. That doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or guns should be taken away, just that people should be educated and then held responsible for their actions - most especially when those actions affect others.

 

[DharanFlyer]

I may be putting a target on my back, but...

Change the choke point. Move the license to the purchasing side of the equation like a FOID card. This would/could only apply to RTF's over xxxmm so that things like the Nano could still be a impulse purchase. Require some simple classes that at least get some education into their heads. As for the pieces like Electrohub I would be willing to bet that the ones who would make the bad choices would not be the same as those of us who build them out.

$0.02 deposited.

*Runs for cover behind the flight line*

 

[PHugger]

Here is the normal way things work once the government gets involved -

1. Fine and Punish abusers (abuse still happens)
2. Enact restrictive legislation that affects everyone (abuse still happens)
3. Run for public office and promise to ban all drones (abuse still happens)

Most laws are like fences - they only keep out honest people!
I know I sound kinda cranky, but I find myself growing more libertarian as I grow older.

I vote for number 1 above - punish the wrongdoers and thereby encourage people to act smart.
Anything more and you start punishing those who already comply.
Ever notice how copy protection only really hurts/inconveniences honest people?


Best regards,
PCH

 

[Craftydan]

Here is the normal way things work once the government gets involved -

1. Fine and Punish abusers (abuse still happens)

I vote for number 1 above - punish the wrongdoers and thereby encourage people to act smart.
Anything more and you start punishing those who already comply.

Nothing improves morale like a public hanging

 

[Stradawhovious]

Punish people for the wrongdoing, not the tool being abused.

Criminals don't understand or care about laws and regulation. What they respond to is punishment. Making more laws and imposing more regulation just unduly punishes the law abiding.

I say cut their thumb and index finger off. First offense non-dominant hand, second offense dominant hand. You will see a drastic reduction in RC nerds doing stupid crap with technology.

 

[joshuabardwell]

they only keep out honest people

I hear this logic a lot in various debates--guns and drugs, most commonly--and I don't find it convincing. You say that fences only keep out honest people, but honest, ignorant people are a lot of the ones making problems for RC flight. These people are quite likely to comply with any regulation that is passed, but in the absence of regulation, assume that they have carte blanche. Regulation can be like a "Private Property - No Trespassing" sign. It communicates to the public the behavior that is expected of them. Just because some people are going to disregard that communication shouldn't be taken to mean that the communication itself is ineffective.

EDIT: And just to be perfectly clear, I am NOT arguing in favor of additional regulation of RC flight. I'm just saying that the "fences only keep honest people out" argument isn't an effective one against said regulation.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I hear this logic a lot in various debates--guns and drugs, most commonly--and I don't find it convincing.

How is it not convincing?

The people inclined to break the rules don't care if you impose more. They are going to break them regardless of how many are in place. It just makes it harder for the ones inclined to follow the rules since there are more to follow.

Criminals don't care about laws, which is what, by definition, makes them criminals. Making more laws just makes it harder for those that are already inclined to follow them, and the ones who aren't don't care.

It's pretty straightforward logic. Enforce the rules that are already in place and impose an appropriate and deturring punishment on those that don't follow them. That's really all you can do.

ETA... Also, to put an even finer point on it, this thread is a perfect example of needless regulation. Please point out recent events that proved an FPV pilot actually abused the technology, and not just some fearmongering story in the news about hearsay and conjecture.

These drones are not quiet. They are not stealthy. Nobody is going to sneak up on you with a Phantom, or any other multirotor capable of carrying a useful "spying" device.

More fearmongering.

Here's a better title for a thread... "What can WE as a community do to cast a better light on Drones and FPV flight?"

 

[makattack]

The problem is, you can't punish people for "wrongdoing" without regulation -- laws. The conundrum with law and enforcement of the law is that lawyers get involved. Case in point: all those signs / fences people are talking about in this thread. I've had it explained to me by police friends/relatives that the reason why you have so many "No Tresspass, Police take notice" signs posted on fences, door ways, etc is because those barriers are not sufficient in a court of law to prevent people from going past them.

It's like anything created by man. You want to try to keep it simple, but it very quickly gets over complicated the more you think about it. Who hasn't started with a simple plane and keep adding bits and bobs to it? I believe that's how we got FPV from LOS models. The same thing happens with laws and regulations.

 

[joshuabardwell]

How is it not convincing? The people inclined to break the rules don't care if you impose more. They are going to break them regardless of how many are in place. It just makes it harder for the ones inclined to follow the rules since there are more to follow.

Because it divides the world into rigid categories of "people inclined to break rules" and "people inclined to follow rules". First of all, even if we stipulate that such categories exist, rules are still useful for "people inclined to follow rules", in situations where rules are not clearly defined. Some would argue that's the case with RC flight right now--that the regulatory infrastructure as it exists is not adequate.

Criminals don't care about laws, which is what, by definition, makes them criminals. Making more laws just makes it harder for those that are already inclined to follow them, and the ones who aren't don't care.

This is the other problem with the rigid categorization. By definition, nobody is a criminal, until the moment when they break the law, at which point they become a criminal. Therefore, laws are useful specifically because they allow us to determine who is and is not a criminal. It's specious to argue against making laws by saying that some people will break them. Obviously some people will break them, and laws are exactly what provide a moral (EDIT: and legal) framework for punishing those who break them.

Furthermore, saying "criminals don't care about laws" requires that we pre-define who is and isn't a criminal and pre-judge that they universally don't care about laws. You're basically arguing that all criminals are anarchists, which simply isn't true. The reality is that many criminals are people who are generally law-abiding, and who made a mistake, or who were ignorant. Even more determined criminals operate within our system of laws to reduce risk to themselves.

All of which is not to say that I am arguing in favor of more regulation, just to be clear. But your argument is, "more regulation is ineffective because the people who are going to break the law are pre-determined to do it, because they are criminals who don't care about the law," and that's simply not true. If you want to argue against regulation of RC flight, argue that such regulation is unnecessary or illegal or something else. But don't argue that it will be ineffective, because (especially from the government's perspective) it won't be.

 

[Stradawhovious]

... lots of words....

You're overthinking this.

Let me make it simple.

Making more laws or building bigger fences won't stop people from breaking/climbing them.

It truly is straightforward logic.

 

[Tritium]

When ones rules come from the ABSOLUTE Authority, the "Human Owners Manual", the Creator of all, there is no need for further rule making. Sadly in this world each tends to make his own rules and follow his own path....not the one prescribed by the Creator who knows man better than he knows himself.

Thurmond

 

[PHugger]

So -

Fence = Common Sense
---------------------------
Works for Smart people
Doesn't work with Ignorant people
Doesn't work with dishonest people (knowing lawbreakers)

No Trespassing Sign on the Fence = Regulation
--------------------------------------------------------
Already works for Smart people
Works for Ignorant people
Doesn't work with dishonest people (knowing lawbreakers)

Law Banning all Activity
-------------------------
Affects everyone negatively except the dishonest


I'd agree that we need some regulation AS LONG AS IT ISN'T ONEROUS.
Since the fences already work for me (I'm smart of course), enforce the fences.
If the ignorant are the problem, target them, not me.
The problem is that a No Trespassing Sign probably won't be enough.
Next we get Barbed Wire, then an Electric Fence, then Armed Guards........
We always seem to use more regulation as a substitute for failure to enforce existing regulations.

Good Discussion!


Best regards,
PCH

 

[Stradawhovious]

So -


I'd agree that we need some regulation AS LONG AS IT ISN'T ONEROUS.
Since the fences already work for me (I'm smart of course), enforce the fences.
If the ignorant are the problem, target them, not me.
The problem is that a No Trespassing Sign probably won't be enough.
Next we get Barbed Wire, then an Electric Fence, then Armed Guards........
We always seem to use more regulation as a substitute for failure to enforce existing regulations.

I agree with you... but will add this.

Regulation means nothing without education. What we REALLY need is education. Then Common sense becomes common knowledge... which is FAR more reliable than common sense, and will drastically cut down on (or eliminate) the need for more regulation.

 

[Stradawhovious]

When ones rules come from the ABSOLUTE Authority, the "Human Owners Manual", the Creator of all, there is no need for further rule making. Sadly in this world each tends to make his own rules and follow his own path....not the one prescribed by the Creator who knows man better than he knows himself.

Thurmond

So what does the Bible say about FPV flight?

 

[joshuabardwell]

Making more laws or building bigger fences won't stop people from breaking/climbing them. It truly is straightforward logic.

And yet I still have a fence around my yard. Why is that?

 

[joshuabardwell]

So what does the Bible say about FPV flight?

Under 400 cubits AGL.

 

[Stradawhovious]

And yet I still have a fence around my yard. Why is that?

Good question. Why is that?

Well, because it helps keep honest people honest, and in the event of a privacy fence.. well.. adds privacy. Or maybe it just keeps your dogs from running away.

More importantly, I have a fence around my yard and keep my doors locked, yet last year my house was still broken into.

Why is that?

 

[joshuabardwell]

When ones rules come from the ABSOLUTE Authority, the "Human Owners Manual", the Creator of all, there is no need for further rule making. Sadly in this world each tends to make his own rules and follow his own path....not the one prescribed by the Creator who knows man better than he knows himself.

Render unto Caesar and all that.