Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#81

Post by canow »

Jupe wrote: post #68
canow wrote: post #45

They probably should require all birds to be geolocated as well... since they present about the same level of danger to real aircrafts..

Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know. Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous. Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.

but tiny toy battery-operated "drones" typically fly at much lower altitude then any jet engine would be flying at... while some birds fly at much higher altitudes then toy quadcopters...

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#82

Post by tensafefrogs »

Malstrond wrote: post #4

I'm wondering how this will be implemented. If used recreationally, they're R/C flying models, no matter how much the DJI marketing dept likes the term. So will the the hobby that has been fine for decades be hit too? Will you have to register a Cheerson CX-Stars that weighs 8g? What about the congressional Special Rule for Model Aircraft? "Technically it's not the FAA so we can regulate everything!" or what? They're…

I suspect we'll see an explosion in popularity of "drones" that are just small enough to to avoid these regulations.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#83

Post by neurotech1 »

olex wrote: post #75
neurotech1 wrote: post #34

One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders. The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL…

Just how accurate is this 2000$ GPS supposed to be? Because my 40$ Ublox M8N GNSS modules on several copters produce a solid lock with constant HDOP<1.5 under normal conditions, averaging around ~1.5m horizontal position deviation, and altitude is locked in via barometer down to several cm. To get more position accuracy, you really need DGPS, which AFAIK planes don't normally use either... and do those couple meters…

Its about certified accuracy. The UBlox or similar module could drift under certain conditions.

From a practical point of view, knowing where the RPV is within a 100 meters would be more than enough.

The $2000+ GPS is certified to provide position under Instrument Flight Rules for an RNAV (Required NAVigation performance) approach and landing. Not required for a RPV flown under 400ft visually.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#84

Post by canow »

Evolved wrote: post #63
canow wrote: post #62

Drones are army planes that can fly for hours and probably weight hundreds if not thousands of pounds... Quadcopters are toys that can fly for minutes and weight only a few pounds...

"Drone" covers all UAVs/RPVs whether small enough to fit on your palm or large enough to need a full size air strip to launch. All UAVs are drones and all drones are UAVs. Not all drones are quadcopters but all quadcopters are drones. Even in the strictest definition, what we commonly call "R/C Planes/Helicopters" actually qualify as "drones." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

ok, so just use an helicopter and load it with some random human and you'll be fine... no restrictions (as long as you don't crash). I'll use this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828...

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#85

Post by neurotech1 »

swingbridge wrote: post #71
neurotech1 wrote: post #34

One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders. The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL…

Interesting idea although there are a lot of technical issues that would make what you describe more challenging. A simpler approach is positive enforcement. Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft. Model aircraft have existed for a long time and there's been a good relationship with the FAA and few incidents. The challenge is that technology…

I thought the DJI Phantom quadcopters do have firmware lockout for certain restricted areas. Most RC flying clubs are committed to being good neighbors and not conflicting with other aircraft.

Part of the issue is that Helicopters do fly quite low, well away from airports, and the DJI Phantom can be flown high enough to be a concern.

Another part of these new regulations is identifying the RPV so that appropriate enforcement or education can occur.

Some people have suggested that DJI Phantom and other RPVs are shipped in "idiot" mode with tight restrictions. Once an operator can show responsible operation, then switch to a less restrictive mode.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#86

Post by guelo »

narrator wrote: post #61

All the big consumer drone makers are in China. I love how all sorts of unregulated surprisingly powerful tech comes out of China. The last mischief they engaged in was way too powerful lasers. They just don't have the fear of science in that country like we have in America.

It's all invented here.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#87

Post by ekianjo »

ctdonath wrote: post #19
MichaelApproved wrote: post #2

I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing. You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once. However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringin…

What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

dont forget that registration will usually come with tax.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#88

Post by unimpressive »

unimpressive wrote: post #14
Malstrond wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can be pretty stubborn about that, look at the title of this website. :-) The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.

>The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart. Part of the reason for that is the hacker community made up a word that no self respecting person would use to describe themselves. The modern 'computer hacking' culture came out of the phreaker community and IMO is the proper description for this a…

Rereading this hours later, I realize that the way I wrote it makes it sound like I'm talking about the word hacker. I'm actually talking about the word cracker, which was essentially a made up term that I'm fairly sure no 'hacker' ever used to describe themselves. The actual 'cracking' community broke DRM schemes and was affiliated with but basically orthogonal to the hacker/phreaker community.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#89

Post by sleepybrett »

Jupe wrote: post #68
canow wrote: post #45

They probably should require all birds to be geolocated as well... since they present about the same level of danger to real aircrafts..

Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know. Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous. Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.

My little racing drone is certainly carbon fiber but it weighs a couple hundred grams.

DJI phantoms, last model I saw is built of plastic.

There hasn't been a recorded plane v drone crash that I've seen documented (the last one that hit the news ended up being birds).

Regardless the rules say under 400', not within 5 miles of an airport and some other locations.

I'm not opposed to a drone 'license plate', I'm all for fining or jailing people that are flying these things near the white house. I'm seeing a lot of hysteria right now triggered by some jackasses who can't be responsible with their toys.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#90

Post by themartorana »

Spooky23 wrote: post #59
ctdonath wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously: why?

Pretty easy. The privilege granted by registration can be linked to other things. So when Mr. Dumbass decides to buy more beer instead of paying for insurance, and subsequently rear ends your car, you are screwed as a motorist. The requirement for registration and insurance tied to a drivers license makes the driving environment work for the vast majority of people. The same thing applies to drones. When some jackass…

We should have a telescope and x-ocular registry! Also camera registry! That way he can't spy on your daughter "remotely" and with "impunity."
Post reply on HN