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

US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

transportation.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#11

Post by chroma »

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1]

Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and secure intersections so emergency vehicles can respond faster. Some even deliver life-saving equipment or medicines. People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Etcetera.

Now imagine someone wanting to restrict these drones so that a few people can use cloth-winged planes that run on leaded gasoline. It would be a joke, right?

Except, it's not. It's the world we live in.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test

Edit: I'm talking about general aviation, not civil aviation. Airliners and drones operate at very different altitudes. Except near airports, there's ≈0 risk of a collision.

Many find my example too skewed in favor of drones, but I think I've been rather conservative. Due to restrictions, there are many applications that haven't been explored. In all likelihood, the "killer app" for drones has yet to be invented.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#12

Post by dogecoinbase »

chroma wrote: post #11

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and…

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#13

Post by dingaling »

bdamm wrote: post #10
matheweis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, about the proposed registration, they fully acknowledged during the press conference that the trouble is tracking down the owners. You aren't going to be able to read the markings on a Phantom at any useful distance when you're trying to track down a violator. I'd propose instead a requirement for ADS-B for the mid and large classes below... Micro ~100g transponders exist, fully integrate with the existing avia…

I think it's a great idea. If anything the FAA (and the curmudgeon pilots) may have seriously underestimated the utility of ADS-B. Also, thanks for the link to the low power transponder. Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.

> Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.

They might be better looking into FLARM, which is specifically designed for low-weight applications

https://flarm.com/

ADS-B is competent in its own space, but is really just a clever hack on top of all sorts of Big Aeroplane Regulations and it carries a lot of financial and weight penalties as a result.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#14

Post by chroma »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #12
chroma wrote: post #11

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and…

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!

My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people.

Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#15

Post by davidmr »

chroma wrote: post #11

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and…

I really don't see even the remotest of relevance of said test to the situation at hand. Airplanes do exist, they carry millions of people a day, and governments must issue and enforce regulations to ensure their safety. It doesn't seem like a stretch of the imagination to envision a drone flown by someone without training flown into a jet engine or the blades of a helicopter because they weren't required to be aware of FAA airspace restrictions. Aircraft are already heavily regulated, so I don't even see your point.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#16

Post by matheweis »

dingaling wrote: post #13
bdamm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a great idea. If anything the FAA (and the curmudgeon pilots) may have seriously underestimated the utility of ADS-B. Also, thanks for the link to the low power transponder. Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.

> Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use. They might be better looking into FLARM, which is specifically designed for low-weight applications https://flarm.com/ ADS-B is competent in its own space, but is really just a clever hack on top of all sorts of Big Aeroplane Regulations and it carries a lot of financial and weight penalties as a result.

Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of it and it looks pretty interesting. I would note though, in case you missed it, that ADS-B transponder I linked is only 100 grams, vs 250+ for the powercore unit.

I'm not sure about all the associated regulations, but my point was there's not any technological holdouts preventing the integration of medium to large UAVs into the existing infrastructure.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#17

Post by sokoloff »

chroma wrote: post #14
dogecoinbase wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!

My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it…

Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#18

Post by dingaling »

bdamm wrote: post #3

Drones should be licensed and/or registered, much the same way as cars are. There are places where you can drive an unregistered car without a driver's license. And that will be true of drones as well. There will be places where you can fly them unlimited. Just not in the common space defined by the government as such. That's what the government is for. "Drone ranch" here we come. I am a private pilot, so I appreciat…

> Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free.

Why not free? Surely their use should be regulated on the basis of scope and competency rather than cost.

Use of drones in personal airspace ( a few metres above one's land ) within the boundaries of one's property should not be the concern of the Government. This would be the equivalent of driving an unlicensed car on one's property.

However if one wished to operate more freely in Class G airspace then I can understand operator and drone registration being necessary. But this should not be based on cost as the gate, but demonstrated competency.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#19

Post by semi-extrinsic »

chroma wrote: post #11

The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1] Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and…

> People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night.

Have you heard of these recent groundbreaking inventions called the "backpack" and the "headlamp"? I gather they last a lot longer before needing a recharge, can carry a lot more weight, and that they work much better when there are obstacles such as trees around.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#20

Post by chroma »

sokoloff wrote: post #17
chroma wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it…

Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.

Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians.

I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?

Post reply on HN