[Osmf-talk] Notes & Bing Imagery
bostoncello at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 5 00:05:38 UTC 2013
I have the opportunity to be around high-end UAVs costing well into the hundreds of thousands of USD. Autopilots fail. I have watched birds drop comms and fly until they ran out of juice. I have watched very expensive UAVs crash in the landing process--with a very skilled military-trained pilot dealing with a wind burst and having inadequate altitude to manage a recovery.
Having sailed a bit in a city, I know a bit about blow downs and weird wind shifts when a long city street empties a strong breeze onto the water. My colleagues in urban search and rescue have far worse horror stories from flying UAVs around tall unstable buildings.
All of these worries are in the professional community, where a healthy respect for the capabilities of unmanned systems is matched by a healthy respect for their shortcomings. I am not hearing the same balanced view in this community yet.
Please discover it by learning from what has worked and failed, rather than repeating idealistic mistakes. This is a complicated systems problem, not just an engineering challenge.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:55 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev <oleksiy.muzalyev at bluewin.ch> wrote:
I would agree with Martin, however, that if we ever go this way, the
utmost attention should be paid to privacy concerns and security.
Perhaps in a form of guidelines or self-regulations, which must be
accepted before making and submitting any orthorectified aerial imagery
for the OSM.
- a drone weight should be limited up to 0.7 kg;
- some sort of a training certificate for pilots (at least internal);
- no photos should be ever made on altitude less than 100 - 200 meters,
so that people are not recognizable at all;
- no flying near airports;
Anyway, the technology, like eBee, seems to be a bit too expensive yet
for an individual. But we may continue to work on airmanship meanwhile,
until it reaches the mass production.
On 04.12.2013 23:34, Simon Poole wrote:
> Well reality is somewhere between your scenario and being hit by a one
> kilo blanket dropped from 100m altitude. It would surely hurt, so much
> is sure.
> In any case I don't quite see the case for alarm on that specific front
> given that at least on auto pilot the devices seem to be quite fail safe
> and there is tons of other stuff that has similar risks that we ignore.
> Am 04.12.2013 16:27, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> 2013/12/4 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch <mailto:simon at poole.ch>>
>> What is working for us, is that it is completely possible to build
>> a working system that weighs less than 1kg (the swinglet is <
>> 0.5kg), and fly at ~100m, reducing potential damage and conflicts
>> to a minimum.
>> well, a 1kg drone falling freely from 100m altitude would have 981J
>> (speed 44.3m/s or ~160km/h) at impact (OK, simplified calculation
>> without air resistance), if it were a human being hit this could
>> already cause serious injury or maybe even death?
>> Another reason for wearing an aluminium hat in the future ;-)
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk