If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Ive been keeping my thoughts on aerial safety somewhat secret for some years, mostly for two reasons. First, I presumed before my thoughts would matter much, others would have much done better and formally codified all this long ago, yet this still has not happened as of the near end of 2014. Second, Ive seen a shocking rise in published videos of outrageous and even criminally reckless operation of drones, which will destroy our sport, hobby and businesses in this new frontier technology. I can be silent no longer.
In particular, cases of idiot pilots flying over drunken idiot crowds using a drone to carry a Champagne bottle, really disturbs me. Several drones have been downed by an idiot hurling a beer bottle at stadiums already. These drones could be coming down into crowds as if it were the Russian front or the battle of Britain.
Dicta Boelcke for the Safe Flying of Drones. (In order of significance and priority)
Zeroth : In all matters related to machine operation, the pilot is responsible for everything that does and does not happen, from power on to power off. The ability to identify the legally responsible operator of the drone(s) should reside within each drone's physical body.
First : Human life, limb and private property are not to be placed at risk by the operation of a drone. This is the highest priority.
Second : There must always be sufficient margin, from departure of commanded flight to a forcible kill (deliberate crash) of the machine, such that human life, limb and property were not in danger during decent or fly-away.
Third : The useful flight of a drone which returns with little or no damage to itself is the lowest priority, and only possible if the zeroth, first and second rules have been satisfied.
Authored by: Patrick W. Coleman 7/18/2009
Influeced by and cited works are: Oswald Boelcke (Hauptmann, Lufftwaffe) "Dicta Boelcke" circa 1916 Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics", circa 1942
The purpose of posting here on the forum which I typically use for my electrical work, is for gaining some peer review and opinions for improvement. I typically see better quality of thought here on this forum, the psuedo-scientificikers and screw-balls are kept mostly at bay. Since most of us deal with lethal chemistry, physics and other hazards on a regular basis, id like to hear from others on this matter.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Carbon_Rod wrote ...
The FAA already has rules that the local police may enforce if kids are doing something stupid.
Note police can still fine you even if you think you are in the legal right.
I fear greatly the FAA here in the states is largely incompetent when it comes to matters of public safety. Recommendations of the NTSB are often ignored by the FAA until 300 people go in at 200 mph, for example.
It maybe that local, state or federal marshals end up being a better solution than the FAA. (I hadn't considered this before)
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
What I like about drones is that they are a disruptive surveillance technology. Anyone with a few hundred dollars in his pocket can have a capability similar to a police helicopter. My favourite example of this was during the recent protests in Hong Kong where aerial footage from civilian drones posted on YouTube showed the true size of the crowds, something that would have been censored by the official media.
I think Patrick's code is a good idea except in so far as the zeroth law implies some sort of mandatory licensing for drones.
I also think the drone pilot should have a camera running at all times, as the footage could be good evidence in the case of an accident.
Registered Member #72
Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659
When anything acquires more energy than it has through simply sitting stationary on the ground, be it a quad copter, small fixed wing aircraft, a thrown brick, a moving automobile or a bullet (I'm counting kinetic energy as well), then there is a non-zero positive chance it will cause damage before it returns to rest. If you caused that acquisition of energy, then you tend to be liable for any damage. Whether you are in the vehicle, in control of it remotely, or responsible for its launch into a more or less guided trajectory, doesn't seem so important.
These potential damage situations are handled differently. Brick throwers are liable to prosecution, while car drivers are required to have insurance. None can guarantee a zero injury rate, though they will tend to reduce it, and offer some restitution if it occurs. Given a sufficiently beneficial and low 3rd party danger activity, some are completely uncontrolled like riding a bicycle, in spite of the non-zero injury rate to others.
Compulsory registration and insurance might seem to be an arguable way to handle unmanned vehicles. The barrier of the need to get insurance would keep a number on the ground, and the checks by insurance companies into your capabilities before they accepted your risk would be effectively a privatised 'driving test'. People would get busted for 'flying without insurance', which would raise the same sort of ire against the authorities as being done for other minor infringements, like speeding.
Regulation might drive the small cheap quads out of the air, who would be bothered to register a 250gm 4" wide toy? You could argue that that's a not unreasonable consequence, or you could argue licensing only applies to craft above (say) 500gms. Maybe fly it within private property and it's OK, fly it outside and the regulations apply, which sounds very much like car driving.
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Steve Conner wrote ...
What I like about drones is that they are a disruptive surveillance technology. Anyone with a few hundred dollars in his pocket can have a capability similar to a police helicopter. My favourite example of this was during the recent protests in Hong Kong where aerial footage from civilian drones posted on YouTube showed the true size of the crowds, something that would have been censored by the official media.
I think Patrick's code is a good idea except in so far as the zeroth law implies some sort of mandatory licensing for drones.
I also think the drone pilot should have a camera running at all times, as the footage could be good evidence in the case of an accident.
I really meant for the zeroth law to be used by a competent pilot to apply the the remaining three. obviously and incompetent pilot wont care much for getting it right or public safety. I may need to thin on this.
As for disruptive technology, i love it !!! these disruptive technologies allow mega-corporations and corrupt governments to be seen and challenged. 3D printing and drones are at the leading edge of this capability. These capabilities seem to be moving away from Big-Brothers advantage, perhaps towards Little-Brother advantage, but we'll see.
Remember, there was a time when Xerox, IBM and HP where the main companies. Then some small time nobodies showed up, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and conned the establishment right out of there own businesses.
The same can be said for the JSF and F-22 national defense scams here in the US by Lockheed and Boeing, robbing the American people. With some help from the export import bank. Yet there is only a contract based system, and due to gigantic mergers allowed in the 90's, there are no competitors to Lockheed, Boeing or BAE.
Fortunately, NASA and the United Launch Alliance cartel are being challenged by Elon Musk, via SpaceX.
Disruption to the capitalist and government Eco-system is important, it keeps things from getting too settled and good ideas moving to the top.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
Patrick wrote ...
Fortunately, NASA and the United Launch Alliance cartel are being challenged by Elon Musk, via SpaceX.
I feel I have to reply here. It sounds like you are not happy that the US space program is reliant on Russian 'launch technology', and that the US should have it's own launch vehicles.
The reason for the US/Russia alliance and ISS, etc. lies primarily in preventing the Russian technology from being sold to the 'next highest bidder' (Iran? North Korea? etc?).
Registered Member #2431
Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Ash Small wrote ...
I feel I have to reply here. It sounds like you are not happy that the US space program is reliant on Russian 'launch technology', and that the US should have it's own launch vehicles.
The reason for the US/Russia alliance and ISS, etc. lies primarily in preventing the Russian technology from being sold to the 'next highest bidder' (Iran? North Korea? etc?).
Im not just fine with buying russian rocket, id be willing to buy at tax payer expense every engine the rooskies make then melt them down. This would affirm US national security, and keep the russians pride and ego feeling good.
I just dont like NASAs constant deriding of private sector solutions, especially in the 90's when they scoffed at anyone who advocated for anything other than tax payer financed lift. well now who laughing NASA cant even put up it own people.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Dicta Boelcke for Drones and Robots, With Reguards to Human Safety.
