5 ms·

Unmanned Aircraft to be Prohibited in America’s National Parks

56 points by hanapbuhay 12y ago

terravion 12y ago
Actually the policy sounds quite sensible and doesn't sound like it will lead to a permanent ban--just a policy about how you can or cannot annoy your fellows in a commons. As the sky gets fuller, it will be less and less likely that users will be able to get away with acting like they are the only ones flying.
- orik 12y ago
  I agree this was a great call by the National Park Service, however I hope it does become a permanent ban- the only people using drones in the National Park should be Park Rangers. Civilians have no place operating drones anywhere near a nature preserve.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    Allow me to disagree slightly. If I'm on El Capitan in Yosemite I might think it was a stellar idea to get a picture of me and my spouse from the perspective of just off the face. That would both put me in the picture and put this amazing rock formation in it as well. Currently you can only do that if you hire a helicopter. 'Getting the right shot' kills a lot of tourists (I wish I knew exactly how many), if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die.
    - ryandvm 12y ago
      You are only selling me further on the ban. I think I would strangle some clown flying a drone right in front of a beautiful scenic overlook. Especially for a selfie.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Why is it okay to have a camera on a tripod on the ground, but not on a small aircraft in the air? Other than the aircraft being a newer accessible technology, I see no difference.
        cmulnz 12y ago
        No difference? Are you kidding? This new technology is very useful and interesting. But is it different from a tripod? Yes, in many ways. At what decibel does your standard tripod operate? What are it's risks of falling out of the sky due to malfunction? How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use?
        baddox 12y ago
        I don't know if you have much experience with multirotors, but they really are not that loud. They're louder than a tripod, obviously, but once they're 10 meters or so away they aren't going to cause a disruption. As for risks of mechanical or operator failure, that's obviously a valid concern, but there are ways to handle that risk without a total ban. > How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use? It's pretty common for humans to wander in front of other picture takers in parks. I wager that happens a lot more per day than drones flying in from of picture takers (even before the ban).
        pseudometa 12y ago
        Because of visibility... say you are trying to take a picture in the air and there are 10 other aircraft in your picture. And none of the other 50 people with their tripods are going to want your silly drone in their pictures. Not to mention the loud buzzing making the whole place an annoying place to be instead of a wonderful moment for everyone. Get a clue.
        baddox 12y ago
        Parks can get crowded with people as well, to the extent that it's not very enjoyable for any of them. I assume that many parks have methods in place to prevent this, and I don't see why they couldn't be applied to small aircraft as well.
    - thinkmassive 12y ago
      It seems like this need would naturally lead to very small camera drones specifically for this purpose. Probably pocket-size and, eventually, inexpensive. I know that lifting a camera and battery requires a sufficient amount of thrust, but if flight was limited to one minute then it could probably be very small. Wind might be an issue, but flying insects have been around for a while. Engineers will figure it out. Hopefully the long term regulations would permit such small personal drones with a very limited flight time.
      - snowwrestler 12y ago
        And if the battery runs out? The drone falls onto some rock climber 1,000 feet below.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Seems a little contrived to me. What if a tourist drops a can of soda? I guess if people really can't stand not having such shots the thing to do would be to license some people to use the drones and make sure they avoid doing the most horribly dangerous things (maybe they could use tethers or something).
        ajuhasz 12y ago
        I agree this is a bit of a stretch as an example, but yes people do drop stuff on climbers. Still an interesting story and maybe a good sign that even the smallest objects (drones or boulders) can lead to a runaway effect on a cliff. Thankfully though, it does have to be a "one in a million" coincidence to hurt someone. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock-climbing/Dropped.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock...
        snowwrestler 12y ago
        > Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Definitely. In Yosemite both Half Dome and El Cap have hiking trails to the top and are very popular for climbing. There's an old joke in climbing when you top out among the hikers: "Wait, you mean there's another way up this thing??" Edit to add: even though a falling drone would probably not actually hit a climber, I don't think anyone wants the base of El Cap littered with smashed little drones.
    - r00fus 12y ago
      Comparing this "need" with the potential disruption to wildlife makes me lean towards wildlife until we get more legal structure around drone policy ironed out in the non-preserve areas.
    - wittjeff 12y ago
      Or it might just do the opposite: "Questionable use of wearable cams is causing a surge in accidents" http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger-Zone-Adventure-Cams-and-Accidents.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger...
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      Consider that people may go to national parks to experience the quiet majesty of nature[1], an experience that would be disturbed by a quadcopter hovering a few feet away taking a glorified selfie. Also consider that there are wild animals nearby who are not used to drones. Areas of Yosemite are closed to climbing annually for raptor nesting, for instance. [1] Yes I recognize that Yosemite Valley might not be the best example of this...
      - baddox 12y ago
        Consider that people may go to national parks to capture photographs and video of the majesty of nature, an experience that would be disturbed by a ban on remote controlled aircraft.
        torbit 12y ago
        Looks like that small percentage of drone owners don't have a voice. The majority use hand devices. A small sacrifice for the good of the majority.
        baddox 12y ago
        Stick around, the percentage of people that own drones is only going up.
    - danpat 12y ago
      The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. It doesn't take too many people doing that and all of a sudden, the airspace of the park would be full of drones, spoiling it for everyone, a classic case of a tragedy of the commons. How frustrating would it be if you couldn't get that nice photo without someone elses drone in it from your flying drone? I live near the Banff National Park in Canada, and it's a continuous game of tug-of-war for the wardens trying to decide what activities to allow in the park. With no restrictions, the place would quickly be overrun. When the point is to experience the wilderness, you have to be very aware that some activities can very quickly, and with very few people, destroy that experience for everyone.
      - jws 12y ago
        I can see making the tourist vistas be drone free. Some of these parks are huge. Operating a quiet drone a mile from the nearest other human diminishes no one else's experience. The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. (Including the other 20,000 people who came the the Grand Canyon south rim on the day I did.)
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. And they restrict where all those things can go, too. If they restricted drones the same way, they might as well ban them outright.
      - baddox 12y ago
        > The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. Plenty of other things interrupt views, like tripods or even other human standing nearby. A general ban on deliberate or extreme interruption is reasonable, but a total ban on remote controlled aircraft is not.
        danpat 12y ago
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      This response makes me think we should bar helicopters rather than allow drones.
    - chrischen 12y ago
      The solution is probably some sort of permit system so they can regulate the number of drones in use so it doesn't become a problem, just like they have for fishing and hunting.
    - digikata 12y ago
      People could as easily get killed trying to retrieve a downed UAV after trying to get a shot with the camera from even more remote vantage points. After all, if you can't get a good shot, most people will give up and get different shot, if your $600 flying toy goes down somewhere remote, you're quite motivated to retrieve it.
    - mikestew 12y ago
      > if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die. They might not die, but I'd offer that they stand a good chance of losing said buzzing, flying drone to a rock throw that went a little off course. No, seriously, I was aiming for that tree.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Property destruction isn't a very classy thing to advocate.
  - radley 12y ago
    Get flying cameras down to < 2" diameter, silent blades, and impact aware/resistant and it'll be commonplace in both urban and nature settings.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Do you have much experience with multirotors? It's fairly simple to get a decent rig that can carry a GoPro for 10 minutes (per battery) that weights under 3 pounds and isn't going to be very audible once it's 10 meters or so away. It certainly won't be <2" in diameter, and it won't literally be silent, but it's not going to be the massive disturbance people in this thread seem to expect.
- baddox 12y ago
  > just a policy about how you can or cannot annoy your fellows in a commons. I don't see anything in the memo that suggests that only annoying usage of drones is banned. I see an absolute ban on remote controlled aircraft.
Shivetya 12y ago
put a string on it and call it a kite. now if the unmanned air craft were silent and didn't spook wildlife I could see not have a restriction
jqm 12y ago
I'm guessing this won't be the last place unmanned aircraft get banned. Probably the places they can actually be flown might eventually be fewer than the places they are banned. In fact, I am guessing as the technology matures and inevitable problems arise because of drones, rather than addressing the problems and working out a solution the first response will generally be....."Ban It!". This might change when/if demonstrable public benefits (beyond a guy taking some pictures) arise.
beat 12y ago
As long as there are reasonable exceptions for legitimate scientific work (and I'm sure there are). In Yellowstone, there's a scenic overlook where you can look through a telescope at a distant hot springs. The springs have a thin crust over boiling mud, so humans cannot enter them. I can see valuable scientific research on such areas using inexpensive drones.
shawn-butler 12y ago
Yes, because you will use "public" lands and enjoy them in exactly and only in the way we tell you to. This is just a precursor to them selling a permit for $1000 a day or something.
- objclxt 12y ago
  How right you are. Why, I should be allowed to drive however I want on "public" roads, because they're for the public. What a fantastic world that would be.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Your snark aside, "public" and "government owned, operated, and controlled" have no appreciable difference between them.
  - shawn-butler 12y ago
    You can drive however you like on "public" roads so long as you are not a harm to yourself or others. You can go where you like, when you like and drive your choice of vehicle. Please explain to me how a UAV is a harm to someone in national parks. PS to those down voting me (for as usual on HN no clear reason whatsoever other than disagreement) that the national park service has been using UAS for years. I'm sure their use is "safe" and will continue for years to come. http://www.nps.gov/fire/aviation/safety/unmanned-aerial-systems.cfm http://www.nps.gov/fire/aviation/safety/unmanned-aerial-syst... The FAA has been handing out exemptions to its ban on UAV to sister federal agencies and denying the public fair use.
msie 12y ago
There should be an exception for search and rescue operations.
- jcurbo 12y ago
  There already is, if you read the article. "The National Park Service may use unmanned aircraft for administrative purposes such as search and rescue, fire operations and scientific study. These uses must also be approved by the associate director for Visitor and Resource Protection."
  - msie 12y ago
    Oops, the one article I didn't read this month. :S
outside1234 12y ago
i am all for this ban. but how are they going to enforce this? drones will increasingly be able to flown from miles away. are they going to shoot them down?
rwhitman 12y ago
Thats a bummer for model airplane enthusiasts
mzemel 12y ago
I was in Zion National Park about a month ago and overheard two rangers talking about these drones. At the time, it was illegal to take off or land inside the park but, as they did not control the airspace, you could fly them in the air.
mrfusion 12y ago
It's a shame. I think they would be useful for preventing poaching.
- njharman 12y ago
  Is poaching really an issue in USA? Honest question. Doesn't seem too common https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=poaching+US+national+parks https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... More plants and trees than animals.
seany 12y ago
Wouldn't this not effect anything if you fly over 500ft AGL?
DEinspanjer 12y ago
I get the complaints about noise and potential danger. Some of these drones are potentially lethal! When I'm flying my drone, I am always very careful to look for areas without unaware bystanders and where I won't be a nuisance. For the more advanced drones being built and bought today, they typically use an autopilot with a GPS and barometric sensor to assist hovering and positioning. If any part of the system fails, it can very easily come crashing down or even worse, become a "fly-away" and land who-knows-where. Given these issues, I do understand the reasoning behind the ban. At the same time, I cringe because it will likely be years before one will be able to get a permit to fly in a national park again, and given some of the footage I've shot so far from my drone, I would have loved the opportunity to shoot locations to which I couldn't walk or hike. If you want to see an example of what one of them looks like and what they can do, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDF3-35aekk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDF3-35aekk

56 points by hanapbuhay 12y ago

Actually the policy sounds quite sensible and doesn't sound like it will lead to a permanent ban--just a policy about how you can or cannot annoy your fellows in a commons. As the sky gets fuller, it will be less and less likely that users will be able to get away with acting like they are the only ones flying.

orik 12y ago
I agree this was a great call by the National Park Service, however I hope it does become a permanent ban- the only people using drones in the National Park should be Park Rangers. Civilians have no place operating drones anywhere near a nature preserve.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Allow me to disagree slightly. If I'm on El Capitan in Yosemite I might think it was a stellar idea to get a picture of me and my spouse from the perspective of just off the face. That would both put me in the picture and put this amazing rock formation in it as well. Currently you can only do that if you hire a helicopter. 'Getting the right shot' kills a lot of tourists (I wish I knew exactly how many), if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die.
  - ryandvm 12y ago
    You are only selling me further on the ban. I think I would strangle some clown flying a drone right in front of a beautiful scenic overlook. Especially for a selfie.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Why is it okay to have a camera on a tripod on the ground, but not on a small aircraft in the air? Other than the aircraft being a newer accessible technology, I see no difference.
      - cmulnz 12y ago
        No difference? Are you kidding? This new technology is very useful and interesting. But is it different from a tripod? Yes, in many ways. At what decibel does your standard tripod operate? What are it's risks of falling out of the sky due to malfunction? How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use?
        baddox 12y ago
        I don't know if you have much experience with multirotors, but they really are not that loud. They're louder than a tripod, obviously, but once they're 10 meters or so away they aren't going to cause a disruption. As for risks of mechanical or operator failure, that's obviously a valid concern, but there are ways to handle that risk without a total ban. > How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use? It's pretty common for humans to wander in front of other picture takers in parks. I wager that happens a lot more per day than drones flying in from of picture takers (even before the ban).
      - pseudometa 12y ago
        Because of visibility... say you are trying to take a picture in the air and there are 10 other aircraft in your picture. And none of the other 50 people with their tripods are going to want your silly drone in their pictures. Not to mention the loud buzzing making the whole place an annoying place to be instead of a wonderful moment for everyone. Get a clue.
        baddox 12y ago
        Parks can get crowded with people as well, to the extent that it's not very enjoyable for any of them. I assume that many parks have methods in place to prevent this, and I don't see why they couldn't be applied to small aircraft as well.
  - thinkmassive 12y ago
    It seems like this need would naturally lead to very small camera drones specifically for this purpose. Probably pocket-size and, eventually, inexpensive. I know that lifting a camera and battery requires a sufficient amount of thrust, but if flight was limited to one minute then it could probably be very small. Wind might be an issue, but flying insects have been around for a while. Engineers will figure it out. Hopefully the long term regulations would permit such small personal drones with a very limited flight time.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      And if the battery runs out? The drone falls onto some rock climber 1,000 feet below.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Seems a little contrived to me. What if a tourist drops a can of soda? I guess if people really can't stand not having such shots the thing to do would be to license some people to use the drones and make sure they avoid doing the most horribly dangerous things (maybe they could use tethers or something).
        ajuhasz 12y ago
        I agree this is a bit of a stretch as an example, but yes people do drop stuff on climbers. Still an interesting story and maybe a good sign that even the smallest objects (drones or boulders) can lead to a runaway effect on a cliff. Thankfully though, it does have to be a "one in a million" coincidence to hurt someone. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock-climbing/Dropped.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock...
        snowwrestler 12y ago
        > Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Definitely. In Yosemite both Half Dome and El Cap have hiking trails to the top and are very popular for climbing. There's an old joke in climbing when you top out among the hikers: "Wait, you mean there's another way up this thing??" Edit to add: even though a falling drone would probably not actually hit a climber, I don't think anyone wants the base of El Cap littered with smashed little drones.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Comparing this "need" with the potential disruption to wildlife makes me lean towards wildlife until we get more legal structure around drone policy ironed out in the non-preserve areas.
  - wittjeff 12y ago
    Or it might just do the opposite: "Questionable use of wearable cams is causing a surge in accidents" http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger-Zone-Adventure-Cams-and-Accidents.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger...
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Consider that people may go to national parks to experience the quiet majesty of nature[1], an experience that would be disturbed by a quadcopter hovering a few feet away taking a glorified selfie. Also consider that there are wild animals nearby who are not used to drones. Areas of Yosemite are closed to climbing annually for raptor nesting, for instance. [1] Yes I recognize that Yosemite Valley might not be the best example of this...
    - baddox 12y ago
      Consider that people may go to national parks to capture photographs and video of the majesty of nature, an experience that would be disturbed by a ban on remote controlled aircraft.
      - torbit 12y ago
        Looks like that small percentage of drone owners don't have a voice. The majority use hand devices. A small sacrifice for the good of the majority.
        baddox 12y ago
        Stick around, the percentage of people that own drones is only going up.
  - danpat 12y ago
    The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. It doesn't take too many people doing that and all of a sudden, the airspace of the park would be full of drones, spoiling it for everyone, a classic case of a tragedy of the commons. How frustrating would it be if you couldn't get that nice photo without someone elses drone in it from your flying drone? I live near the Banff National Park in Canada, and it's a continuous game of tug-of-war for the wardens trying to decide what activities to allow in the park. With no restrictions, the place would quickly be overrun. When the point is to experience the wilderness, you have to be very aware that some activities can very quickly, and with very few people, destroy that experience for everyone.
    - jws 12y ago
      I can see making the tourist vistas be drone free. Some of these parks are huge. Operating a quiet drone a mile from the nearest other human diminishes no one else's experience. The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. (Including the other 20,000 people who came the the Grand Canyon south rim on the day I did.)
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. And they restrict where all those things can go, too. If they restricted drones the same way, they might as well ban them outright.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. Plenty of other things interrupt views, like tripods or even other human standing nearby. A general ban on deliberate or extreme interruption is reasonable, but a total ban on remote controlled aircraft is not.
      - danpat 12y ago
  - bradleyjg 12y ago
    This response makes me think we should bar helicopters rather than allow drones.
  - chrischen 12y ago
    The solution is probably some sort of permit system so they can regulate the number of drones in use so it doesn't become a problem, just like they have for fishing and hunting.
  - digikata 12y ago
    People could as easily get killed trying to retrieve a downed UAV after trying to get a shot with the camera from even more remote vantage points. After all, if you can't get a good shot, most people will give up and get different shot, if your $600 flying toy goes down somewhere remote, you're quite motivated to retrieve it.
  - mikestew 12y ago
    > if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die. They might not die, but I'd offer that they stand a good chance of losing said buzzing, flying drone to a rock throw that went a little off course. No, seriously, I was aiming for that tree.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Property destruction isn't a very classy thing to advocate.
- radley 12y ago
  Get flying cameras down to < 2" diameter, silent blades, and impact aware/resistant and it'll be commonplace in both urban and nature settings.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Do you have much experience with multirotors? It's fairly simple to get a decent rig that can carry a GoPro for 10 minutes (per battery) that weights under 3 pounds and isn't going to be very audible once it's 10 meters or so away. It certainly won't be <2" in diameter, and it won't literally be silent, but it's not going to be the massive disturbance people in this thread seem to expect.
baddox 12y ago
> just a policy about how you can or cannot annoy your fellows in a commons. I don't see anything in the memo that suggests that only annoying usage of drones is banned. I see an absolute ban on remote controlled aircraft.

Shivetya 12y ago

put a string on it and call it a kite. now if the unmanned air craft were silent and didn't spook wildlife I could see not have a restriction

jqm 12y ago

I'm guessing this won't be the last place unmanned aircraft get banned. Probably the places they can actually be flown might eventually be fewer than the places they are banned. In fact, I am guessing as the technology matures and inevitable problems arise because of drones, rather than addressing the problems and working out a solution the first response will generally be....."Ban It!". This might change when/if demonstrable public benefits (beyond a guy taking some pictures) arise.

beat 12y ago

As long as there are reasonable exceptions for legitimate scientific work (and I'm sure there are). In Yellowstone, there's a scenic overlook where you can look through a telescope at a distant hot springs. The springs have a thin crust over boiling mud, so humans cannot enter them. I can see valuable scientific research on such areas using inexpensive drones.

shawn-butler 12y ago

Yes, because you will use "public" lands and enjoy them in exactly and only in the way we tell you to. This is just a precursor to them selling a permit for $1000 a day or something.

objclxt 12y ago
How right you are. Why, I should be allowed to drive however I want on "public" roads, because they're for the public. What a fantastic world that would be.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Your snark aside, "public" and "government owned, operated, and controlled" have no appreciable difference between them.
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  You can drive however you like on "public" roads so long as you are not a harm to yourself or others. You can go where you like, when you like and drive your choice of vehicle. Please explain to me how a UAV is a harm to someone in national parks. PS to those down voting me (for as usual on HN no clear reason whatsoever other than disagreement) that the national park service has been using UAS for years. I'm sure their use is "safe" and will continue for years to come. http://www.nps.gov/fire/aviation/safety/unmanned-aerial-systems.cfm http://www.nps.gov/fire/aviation/safety/unmanned-aerial-syst... The FAA has been handing out exemptions to its ban on UAV to sister federal agencies and denying the public fair use.

msie 12y ago

There should be an exception for search and rescue operations.

jcurbo 12y ago
There already is, if you read the article. "The National Park Service may use unmanned aircraft for administrative purposes such as search and rescue, fire operations and scientific study. These uses must also be approved by the associate director for Visitor and Resource Protection."
- msie 12y ago
  Oops, the one article I didn't read this month. :S

outside1234 12y ago

i am all for this ban. but how are they going to enforce this? drones will increasingly be able to flown from miles away. are they going to shoot them down?

rwhitman 12y ago

Thats a bummer for model airplane enthusiasts

mzemel 12y ago

I was in Zion National Park about a month ago and overheard two rangers talking about these drones. At the time, it was illegal to take off or land inside the park but, as they did not control the airspace, you could fly them in the air.

mrfusion 12y ago

It's a shame. I think they would be useful for preventing poaching.

njharman 12y ago
Is poaching really an issue in USA? Honest question. Doesn't seem too common https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=poaching+US+national+parks https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... More plants and trees than animals.

seany 12y ago

Wouldn't this not effect anything if you fly over 500ft AGL?

DEinspanjer 12y ago

I get the complaints about noise and potential danger. Some of these drones are potentially lethal! When I'm flying my drone, I am always very careful to look for areas without unaware bystanders and where I won't be a nuisance. For the more advanced drones being built and bought today, they typically use an autopilot with a GPS and barometric sensor to assist hovering and positioning. If any part of the system fails, it can very easily come crashing down or even worse, become a "fly-away" and land who-knows-where. Given these issues, I do understand the reasoning behind the ban. At the same time, I cringe because it will likely be years before one will be able to get a permit to fly in a national park again, and given some of the footage I've shot so far from my drone, I would have loved the opportunity to shoot locations to which I couldn't walk or hike. If you want to see an example of what one of them looks like and what they can do, take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDF3-35aekk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDF3-35aekk