[HN Gopher] FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over pe...
___________________________________________________________________
FAA issuing new rules to allow drones to fly over people and at
night
Author : skanga
Score : 102 points
Date : 2020-12-28 20:38 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| phkahler wrote:
| Does the broadcast ID include location like ADS-B? Also, is it in
| the clear? If so, I see both fun and trouble ahead.
| clamprecht wrote:
| I wish drones could, at least optionally, transmit on ADS-B,
| with some "drone" flag. That could help pilots with ADS-B IN a
| lot, as long as it was clearly indicated as a drone.
| lgats wrote:
| Remote ID Executive Summary:
| https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executiv...
|
| Remote ID Final Ruling:
| https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Ru...
| jmercouris wrote:
| This will revolutionize the delivery industry. I imagine trucks
| will become mobile drone carriers with drones landing and taking
| off with packages as they travel through the city.
| brk wrote:
| I tend to doubt that happening soon. There are still a lot of
| logistical issues to drones flying around trying to deliver
| packages to the appropriate locations without a lot of live
| human supervision. IMO, this more opens up a potential market
| to justify investment in the space to create solutions.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I have a lot of doubts on the cost/efficiency of this. Keeping
| things airborne will always cost a lot more energy than rolling
| things around. Ground-based delivery robots make some sense,
| air-based ones likely don't.
| lumost wrote:
| It's likely that the energy cost of drone delivery is a small
| fraction of the cost a human delivery driver incurs walking
| to a stoop, particularly if one considers the not
| insignificant injury risk.
|
| flight is appealing over ground based drones as one delivery
| truck or base station could concurrently service multiple
| blocks with lower risk of someone abducting or damaging the
| drone. Although in all honesty I'm not sure if weight, range,
| carrying capacity, or speed would work out in a compelling
| form factor.
| pc86 wrote:
| You're naive if you think a company is going to take on
| increases costs via drone-based deliveries to marginally
| decrease delivery driver injury risk.
| xnx wrote:
| I had the crazy thought that drones ladden with deliveries
| could dispatch from the top of a central tall structure (like
| a skyscraper or antenna), take advantage of the height
| differential to efficiently glide toward their delivery
| destination, and then make their return with less weight to
| carry. Probably very few locales where this could make sense
| compared to automated sidewalk deliveries like Starship. The
| speed of the delivery could be astoundingly fast though.
| pc86 wrote:
| There aren't many warehouses at the top of skyscrapers,
| though.
| jdironman wrote:
| And you have to move not only the drones, but also the
| packages to the top.
| kreeben wrote:
| >> drones ladden with deliveries could dispatch from the
| top of a central tall structure
|
| Wouldn't the cost of elevating the loaded drones to the
| rooftop of that tall structure negate any monetary gains?
| Wouldn't the cost be exactly that of simply using grounded
| vehicles that elevate themselves?
|
| (edited for clarity)
| selectodude wrote:
| An elevator?
| kreeben wrote:
| An elevator indeed. But there's a cost involved in
| elevating goods to the top of a tall building. My
| question was, is that cost smaller than the cost of
| having drones with elevation capabilities take of from
| the ground?
| datameta wrote:
| Presumably the predominant portion of the energy used to
| raise an elevator is for the mass of the elevator itself
| hatsunearu wrote:
| lifting those payloads up the tower would just use the
| commerical power grid and not batteries that you also
| have to carry up. cables and motors are much more
| efficient than propellers.
| [deleted]
| szhu wrote:
| Not an expert in this field by any means, but I feel like
| most of a helicopter's thrust is used to keep it in the
| air, even when it's lowering slightly.
|
| Maybe this can be efficient if the drone had a fixed wing
| so it can glide. Or we can make the "structure" really
| really tall -- perhaps the delivery plane can launch drones
| that basically paraglide into the city below, and the
| drones can fly back to a collection center once they've
| delivered the payload.
| contingencies wrote:
| This is not totally crazy. A problem would be you then need
| a lift to carry everything to the top floor and an
| expensive structure to support it. You also have local wind
| and weather conditions to deal with at altitude.
|
| Alternatively, you could use a ground-based slingshot to
| vertically propel gliders, an approach that is already used
| in the military and for some long distance UAV testing.
| victorthehuman wrote:
| If we're talking about fixed wing drones in rural
| environments then it does makes sense. A good example of that
| is this drone delivery service in Rwanda
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEbRVNxL44c
| clort wrote:
| Energy cost per time of use. drones might be a lot quicker to
| do the delivery job, particularly if the delivery point needs
| to be more secure than just tossing packages onto the front
| porch in plain sight as currently seems to be done.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I imagine trucks will become mobile drone carriers with drones
| landing and taking off with packages as they travel through the
| city._
|
| I saw a mockup video of this once. I think it was for UPS, but
| I might be remembering that part wrong. The upshot was that
| it's not useful in cities, but could be used to make exurban
| and rural deliveries much more efficient because the delivery
| truck doesn't have to trundle down a bunch of long driveways.
| powersnail wrote:
| I can understand it for some long-distanced batch delivery, by
| a giant drone.
|
| However, swarms of little drones flying in the sky of cities or
| private properties seems incredibly irritating, however
| efficiently they improve deliveries.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I think about the truly massive # of packages delivered all
| over the place and think we'll need some significant routing
| protocols in place before we can easily get enough drones
| airborne without crashing into each other. Sort of a tcp/ip
| for millions of drones.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Commercial delivery drones will likely be some form of VTOL
| fixed wing craft, which can be significantly quieter when
| cruising.
|
| Additionally they can usually fly higher which further
| reduces the noise pollution.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Without even drones, trucks could be motherships that dispatch
| deliverers on electric scooters for the last quarter mile.
| Scooters could catch up with the truck, dock to recharge and
| get new packages and then roll out again
| scrose wrote:
| Cities feel like the last place that would be a good fit for
| airborne delivery, at least in the US.
|
| Take NYC for example: Delivery people on e-bikes are still
| harassed incessantly by the NYPD and community boards by people
| being scared of the _possibility_ of being hit by them.
|
| Factor in our paranoia about terrorism and a single
| accidentally dropped package would likely result in counter
| terrorism and bomb squads being called in.
|
| I couldn't imagine any proposal for giant flying robots with
| multi-pound payloads hovering overhead be taken seriously by
| even the most progressive leaders.
|
| In hard to reach / rural areas, I could see some benefits from
| drone technology though. Drone chainsaws, anyone?[0]
|
| [0] https://nypost.com/video/watch-this-helicopter-saw-blaze-
| thr...
| burade wrote:
| Is it really worth it to have your peace disturbed by hundreds
| of annoying little helicopters just so you can have a panini
| sandwich delivered in 2 minutes instead of 10?
| jschwartzi wrote:
| What about all the paninis you can get if you can make the
| shot though? Think of it as urban duck hunting.
| mikequinlan wrote:
| This is what I have been thinking but I would personally prefer
| they use trebuchets and launch the packages onto your porch
| (instead of using drones). Not because it would be practical
| but because it would be cool.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| The final rule looks to be a big win for everyone who was
| protesting the original proposed rule:
|
| "The final Remote ID rule eliminates the requirement that drones
| be connected to the internet to transmit location data; the final
| rule requires drones to broadcasts remote ID messages via radio
| frequency broadcast."
|
| This is great because RF broadcast-based Remote ID is much
| simpler and cost-effective to integrate into existing hobby or
| consumer drones. It could be built into RC receivers, or as a
| separate transponder.
| mike_d wrote:
| It is extremely hypocritical in any form. At the same time that
| the FAA is asking hobbyists to broadcast identification, they
| are modifying the rules to allow the rich and famous to change
| their identifiers at will preventing any sort of public
| accountability. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/
| snuxoll wrote:
| RF can still be expensive depending on how it needs to be
| implemented. As a casual drone pilot I'm still concerned about
| how this is going to effect cost, existing equipment in the
| field and hobby/home-built uSAS's.
|
| I'll still take it over the internet mandate, however - so it's
| a step in the right direction.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| No matter what, there will be consequences for DIY/hobby
| aircraft, just because cost/weight/complexity are critical
| factors in a small drone. Most of the planes I fly now are
| wood/cardboard with a few dumb electrical components. Adding
| any component will make it harder for newcomers to enter the
| field.
|
| The FAA has decided that unregulated drone flight is an
| issue, and no matter what, they're going to tackle it. So I'm
| happy to see any solution that allows for the continued
| existence of the DIY part of the industry.
|
| In my mind the "ideal" solution for DIY aircraft is a
| separate RC receiver-sized transmitter, powered over BEC,
| that you add to your aircraft when you are flying in
| conditions that require Remote ID. The transmitter would
| become another fixed cost in the hobby, but you could use it
| on whatever aircraft you're flying -- It would be linked to a
| pilot, instead of a particular aircraft. I have zero
| knowledge of RF physics and engineering, but I'd be happy if
| that was possible without a heavy transmitter and significant
| power consumption.
| treeman79 wrote:
| I've already had a drone hovering outside Daughters bedroom
| window.
|
| Some people have very different concerns about
| accountability of drones.
| 14 wrote:
| You may be dismayed by the fact that hovering outside
| someone's window, at least in Canada, is not a crime
| unless the individual was naked or engaging in sexual
| activity. The drones laws were left vague for now and
| have not caught up to the technology. Here are the rules
| for Canada: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-
| safety/flying-your-dr...
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I've already had a drone hovering outside Daughters
| bedroom window._
|
| A couple of years ago, a guy up the street got a "drone"
| for Christmas, and spent the next couple of weeks flying
| into the backyards of everyone on the block, presumably
| to look in the windows or see what else he could get away
| with. I don't know why he thought that was a good idea,
| especially since the thing was noisy as hell.
|
| It stopped suddenly. I don't know if someone called the
| police, or hit it with a tennis racket, or what. But by
| Saint Valentine's Day he was back to racing his remote
| controlled cars up and down the block, instead.
| snuxoll wrote:
| I'll never understand people who use drones like this,
| even ignoring the obvious moral and ethical issues of
| voyeurism they're loud and obnoxious at the altitudes you
| would need to go peeping through windows.
|
| Every time I try and assuage fears laypeople have about
| drones and privacy there's a story or anecdote about some
| dumbass who does stuff like this anyway...
| phkahler wrote:
| Magnetron and a wok for a dish. Kitchen counter measures.
| gtfoutttt wrote:
| Go on....
| mike_d wrote:
| Be careful there tough guy, drones receive the same
| protections as aircraft. A threat against one is
| punishable under 18 U.S. Code SS 32.
|
| "Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat [against
| an aircraft] shall be fined under this title or
| imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
| chrisdalke wrote:
| The need for regulation and education around proper usage
| of consumer drones is definitely clear, as shown by your
| (and many other people's) experience! Most enthusiasts
| would agree that a solution is needed. Most drone
| incidents have been untrained or reckless operators
| piloting a DJI drone somewhere they shouldn't.
|
| Most of the concern with proposed Remote ID regulations
| was because 1) The regulation didn't actually solve the
| issue of untrained drone operators and 2) Added a high
| barrier to entry that would stifle the large
| hobby/enthusiast/startup industry while giving large
| companies like Amazon free reign over the airspace.
| iso947 wrote:
| People do not need educating not to spy on teenage girls
| with drones, they do not need training to not do it.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| But that's not why the FAA is regulating it, and these
| regulations won't stop that. They're regulating because
| people are flying recklessly above 400ft, above roadways,
| and in restricted airspace.
| treeman79 wrote:
| On an intellectual level not distracting and crashing a
| Boeing is more important.
|
| On a dad level, well. Protective emotions can be intense.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I haven't followed drone stuff closely in a while. any idea how
| this affects an older drone like a DJI spark that wasn't
| designed with these requirements in mind? is it just impossible
| to fly legally now?
| heartbreak wrote:
| These requirements won't affect a DJI Spark for at least
| another 2.5 years, by which point hopefully DJI will have a
| retrofit solution.
| [deleted]
| SoSoRoCoCo wrote:
| This is odd: night would be the time when I would think people
| don't want to hear "whirrrrrrr...' of drones flying over their
| houses.
| noizejoy wrote:
| Noise pollution can be regulated separately.
| rangersanger wrote:
| It should be part of the rule allowing them to fly at night.
| It's clearly related, why delay?
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Yeah, even if all of the logistical and technical issues of
| drone delivery make it economically viable for Amazon (or
| whoever) - I think I might boycott Amazon as a company if they
| started using drones for _any_ deliveries. They are just so
| obnoxiously loud I would probably welcome people shooting them
| out of the sky (or if you 're awesome you can use an eagle).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5hCxBZTh0
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816
| itisit wrote:
| Plenty of companies hard at work on making anti-drone tech
| consumer friendly. Rejoice!
| ineedasername wrote:
| Which will quickly be made illegal if it interferes with
| major commercial activity
| leetcrew wrote:
| I'm not sure what "anti-drone tech" could mean other than
| RF jamming, which is already very illegal.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Birdshot?
| jakear wrote:
| I'd pay good money for a shotgun-like device that had
| power enough to take down the drones foreigners like to
| fly meters from my face videotaping me as I walk down the
| beach, but not powerful enough to be dangerous to use in
| such contexts.
| triceratops wrote:
| > drones foreigners like to fly meters from my face
| videotaping me
|
| Please explain. I'm genuinely curious.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Obviously not a shotgun - but if you're serious about
| wanting to safely disable drones you can buy net guns
| that actually work.
|
| https://netgun.com/
| leetcrew wrote:
| hard to see how this could be legal. you don't get to
| destroy other people's stuff just because they are
| annoying you with it. even if what they are doing is not
| quite legal, you would probably end up on the wrong side
| of the law yourself.
| itisit wrote:
| > you don't get to destroy other people's stuff just
| because they are annoying you with it.
|
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/news/a1796
| 9/m...
| jakear wrote:
| High velocity low mass shot pellets propelled in the
| drone's general direction via pyrotechnics or similar?
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I was about to have a knee-jerk reaction to this, but I just
| realized I may misunderstand what the rules actually allow.
|
| My worst-case scenario, perhaps totally unrealistic, is that this
| allows a drone with a camera to hover over my property, peeping
| in through the windows.
|
| Are there any current / upcoming rules that prevent that?
| coder543 wrote:
| Many states have laws that specifically prohibit the
| intentional use of a drone for surveillance of someone else on
| their personal property.
|
| This announcement isn't at all related your concerns, and
| changes (essentially?) nothing there whatsoever.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The article is extremely vague, but from what I understand the
| rule it's referring to is literally just an (often-ignored)
| prohibition from flying above people, at any height, that was
| put in place to at least theoretically reduce the danger of
| drone crashes.
| [deleted]
| coder543 wrote:
| What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone
| photography / videography?
|
| I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and
| videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the
| smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and
| videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA
| license?
|
| That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a
| requirement that will eventually go away.
| pc86 wrote:
| Like NW says, the FAA heavily regulates commercial activity.
| You can get a private license in as little as 40-ish hours. But
| you need an absolute minimum of 250 total hours to even qualify
| for a commercial license (and there are a bunch of hour
| requirements in subcategories such that if you're not
| explicitly working toward it, you're unlikely to meet
| minimums), and there's another written and practical exam.
|
| And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license
| already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing
| more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test.
| Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-
| thought.
| frisco wrote:
| As a pilot, the dynamics of flying for money are very different
| than flying for fun or personal reasons. The pressure to make
| the flight in marginal conditions, or push separation to get
| the shot, or otherwise just generally fly closer to the limits
| is real and significant. Adding money (and presumably third
| parties) totally changes the nature of the operation.
| skanga wrote:
| Good point!
| coder543 wrote:
| Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes more sense.
|
| I still hope they'll make the rules more permissive at some
| point, especially as drones are integrating more and more
| flight automation and collision avoidance technology. Maybe
| certify certain drones with specific features and
| restrictions as being suitable for commercial usage without a
| license? Accidents can still happen, but... accidents can
| also happen with any kind of commercial activity, even
| without drones involved at all.
| frisco wrote:
| My impression is that it's pretty easy to get a Part 107
| Remote Pilot license; I think it's essentially just a
| knowledge test. Even if all you learn getting it is how the
| airspace system works and how to coordinate your use of it,
| that's a significant base of knowledge that is essential to
| flying responsibly in the US. There are serious civil and
| criminal penalties in the Federal Aviation Regulations for
| lots of complex rules that really do matter, so it makes
| sense that they at least just want commercial operators to
| understand what they are on the hook for.
| phkahler wrote:
| Hence even pilots need a commercial license to do paid aerial
| photography.
|
| The thing that bothers me about that is the scenario where
| pictures are taken for fun, but later what if someone were to
| offer money for them?
| Retric wrote:
| In such cases it's normally intent that matters. A lot of
| laws are based around intent, which might seem like a huge
| issue but that's why terms like 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
| are used.
|
| If you're regularly selling photos from your regular drone
| flights then that's hard to argue about. But a once off
| because you happen to take a news worthy photo is another
| story.
| vmception wrote:
| > That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a
| requirement that will eventually go away.
|
| Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior.
| They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they
| have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't
| want to bother Congress about it.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| You may feel it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with other FAA
| certificates: i.e. you need a commercial pilot certificate to
| be paid to fly.
| leetcrew wrote:
| drones represent a potential hazard to other aircraft as well
| as people on the ground, which, like it or not, gives the FAA
| an interest in regulating their use. I agree it seems arbitrary
| at first glance, but I think it's better to look at it the
| other way around: the FAA is essentially cutting hobbyists a
| break from what they would normally require of a drone
| operator.
| rdxm wrote:
| who would even remotely trust the FAA at this point?
|
| It's a broken agency that is very much bought and paid for by
| commercial interests at the expense of the people it is ther to
| protect.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| The actual release from the FAA today regarding the two new drone
| rules for "Remote ID" and "Operations Over People and at Night".
| The release includes links to executive summaries and full text
| of the rules:
| https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsI...
| zython wrote:
| Anyone want to bet in what capacity this will be used for
| (police) surveillance ? Especially since Alphabet and Amazon are
| involved.
| Firerouge wrote:
| Police forces have been using drones for surveillance since at
| least 2017, including beyond line of sight flights at night.
|
| https://whitmancountywatch.com/2019/11/07/pullman-police-fli...
|
| It seems that these regulations are focused on permitting
| private commercial flights similar rights.
| zython wrote:
| Thats exacly my point; when the police is under increased
| public scrutiny this type of dodgy shit gets offloaded to the
| private sector with little to none public interest of
| oversight.
| pc86 wrote:
| I could see automated license plate reader and facial
| recognition use cases for sure. Depending on how high the drone
| flies FR may or may not be feasible.
| skanga wrote:
| Do automated license plate reader work via night vision
| systems? Could they be made to work?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Ohio at least requires that there be a light that
| illuminates the liscense plate whenever the headlights are
| turned on, so no need for special night vision systems
| vel0city wrote:
| Lots of license plates these days have high contrast
| between the letters and the background. These license
| plates are often usually covered in retroreflectors such
| that the high contrast is accentuated with any kind of
| light. A strong IR light source from an IR camera can
| probably read most clean license plates driving by without
| being obvious to the people being viewed. Remember that
| light follows the inverse square law, so if you're far away
| you'll probably need a pretty bright IR source to get a
| good high contrast read from a far away license plate,
| along with pretty good optics/sensor to reliably read the
| plate.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Even though I don't fly over people, I retrofitted a parachute
| onto my DJI drone just in case. It automatically deploys if the
| drone loses power or control. It doesn't impact flight
| characteristics or battery life by much.
|
| I feel like a basic safety like this would be a prudent and more
| effective measure for overhead flights than self-transmitting
| "license plates" (which I agree are at least better than the
| silly internet requirement).
| GordonS wrote:
| I've never flown a drone, but this sounds like a pretty cool
| idea! Are you aware of anything like this being a requirement
| anywhere, or having being proposed by regulators anywhere?
| taf2 wrote:
| oh if you can that would be really cool to see how you did
| that... I'd love to retrofit something like this to my drone...
| I did buy my kids a drone and the issue there was they flew it
| into a very tall tree... needless say it's still in the very
| tall tree
| spydum wrote:
| What you need is a second drone..
| balls187 wrote:
| Have you tested deploying the parachute?
| fjabre wrote:
| This will bring about new technology to deal with the rising
| threat. People don't take kindly to being constantly spied on. I
| imagine many will take matters into their own hands.
| p410n3 wrote:
| Except everyone already does all the time?
| fjabre wrote:
| Is that so?
| xwdv wrote:
| I could easily take pictures of you in public with a phone
| and there's nothing you can do about it.
| donatj wrote:
| I mean there is mass surveillance of basically all
| communication.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Whenever I encounter people flying drones - for example at the
| park - I find it highly obnoxious. The buzzing of their rotors is
| noise pollution that ruins the peace of a park/natural area, and
| while I recognize the right to record in public spaces, there's
| something especially creepy about a drone flying along a jogging
| path near you armed with the latest 4K cameras. I think drone
| enthusiasts don't understand how that can impact women
| especially. I also think it would be incredibly annoying to have
| drones constantly in the sky above you if our current volume of
| deliveries is moved from ground to air. I hope both are heavily
| regulated and curbed.
| post_break wrote:
| Honestly this just sounds like NIMBY. First there are loud
| drones and quiet drones, noise pollution can be regulated. Next
| the video from a drone for spying on a woman jogging is nothing
| compared to someone with a decent DSLR with a telephoto that
| makes zero noise. And third drone deliveries could have
| airspace carved out that avoids residential or places that
| would annoy people.
|
| Now that said some people are obnoxious with it, they fly by
| people, make noise, I agree that should met with criticism,
| maybe fines, but I also believe drones will have a big impact
| in quality of life not just from delivery bots but police,
| medical, and including hobbyists.
| downut wrote:
| I had a neighbor hover a large, very noisy drone over my wife
| who was working in her backyard garden, out of sight from
| said neighbors, who were piloting from the house across from
| me. She was terrified. There easily could have been a large
| escalation. After my intervention it hasn't happened again,
| but the sort of judgement that leads to the stupidity in the
| first place, in my experience, cannot resist the lure to
| offend again, especially if the bad judger has been drinking.
|
| I read the blithe attitude in comments like these, and I am
| sure there will be large escalations in the future. FWIW, in
| AZ, this behaviour appears to be legal.
| post_break wrote:
| Out of line of sight sounds illegal from looking at the
| FAA. Flying over people is currently illegal too. Flying
| while drinking is also illegal... Report them to the FAA.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| The idea of police drones flying around is honestly even
| worse
| post_break wrote:
| Tons of police have drones for video, rescue, etc. Some of
| them are huge:
| https://www.dji.com/matrice-300?site=enterprise&from=nav
| ericmcer wrote:
| Agreed, I think personal freedom is great, but it should be
| closely tied to how much your actions limit the freedoms of
| others. One persons right to fly a noisy helicopter around
| using a smartphone is not worth 20+ peoples right to read, walk
| and enjoy nature.
|
| I find a loud buzzing totally pulls me out of any reverie and
| makes me angry. I was watching the birds last week near a drone
| also and they were rerouting or turning away from the area it
| was flying in. Totally not worth it to disturb people, and even
| worse, what little wildlife still remains in the open space we
| have pushed them into.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-28 23:00 UTC)