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

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#21

Post by themagician »

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…

Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones". People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared.

RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so more people are interested. If anything, it's safer today than it was 10 years ago. They are more reliable, more controllable, and fewer people are flying gasoline powered craft.

This won't make things any safer. Far from it. It will just stifle innovation by drying up the revenue streams of companies like DJI and 3DR. So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned toy fucking magnets, but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything. Someone, somewhere, maybe almost had a "close call" a few months ago with a plane and an RC helicopter. Better get the DOT, FAA, and Congress on this stat. It's literally the next 9/11 just waiting to happen.

So we'll come up with a registration list, licensing parameters, mandatory insurance, and we'll start "banning" anything that doesn't meet FAA specifications from being imported or manufactured.

Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#22

Post by chroma »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #19
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.

If you've ever tried to run with a backpack or headlamp, you'd know it's a giant pain. Headlamps bounce up and down (no matter what sort of straps you have), often becoming dislodged. It's enough of an annoyance that I don't use a headlamp when running at night.

Backpacks also bounce around, and their inertia messes with your running form. If you use a chest strap to secure the pack better, you'll have a harder time breathing. And there's the problem of sweat. By the end of the workout, your backpack is going to be sweaty and gross. Unless it's waterproof, things inside will be as well.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#24

Post by fit2rule »

themagician wrote: post #21
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…

Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones". People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared. RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so m…

>RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem.

Its not true that RC has been problem-less - there have been malicious uses of the technology, and fatalities, since the day it was possible to rig up a plane and fly it around. Flight systems, of any variety, are easy to weaponize.

Regulation is a good thing because it requires a more responsible response from civil society. The number of times I've seen day-one flyers out at the local park with their new toy, swooping and hawing over peoples heads recklessly, crashing far too close to civilian life for comfort .. as an RC pilot with 30+ years of experience, I welcome a little enforcement on this subject, frankly. Todays new flyers are quite reckless. Not everyone, obvious, but enough evidence of recklessness exists that I think its a perfectly reasonable requirement that people be registered in order to fly.

>So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits.

That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. Flight hobbyists have always been a significant contributor to the science - I would say that flight nerds manifest some of the very same traits that the hacker world admire, inasmuch as the desire to experiment and use technology in interesting ways is promoted with every successful landing.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#25

Post by fit2rule »

matheweis wrote: post #7
matheweis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a pilot (although the right $$ would have me there in a an instant... wishful thinking), but I have been flying various remote control aircraft (including so-called "drones", now) for nearly 20 years. A sensible system seems like it would be three tiered: Very small stuff would remain unregulated - obviously there is no concern with things like the CX-10, right? I can't imagine a "drone" of anything near tha…

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…

Why bother with transponders when most new transmitter/receiver technologies already have unique MAC-address-like fields, precisely for the purpose of identification?

I guess its for the 'flew dangerously and then got away with it' case, where some followup/law enforcement would be required to nab the perps, and not so much for the 'lets find out who is flying this thing right now and where they are located' ..

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#26

Post by jjwiseman »

fit2rule wrote: post #25
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…

Why bother with transponders when most new transmitter/receiver technologies already have unique MAC-address-like fields, precisely for the purpose of identification? I guess its for the 'flew dangerously and then got away with it' case, where some followup/law enforcement would be required to nab the perps, and not so much for the 'lets find out who is flying this thing right now and where they are located' ..

For the situations where a drone is flying autonomously or out of range of a transmitter; You could still use ADS-B type transponders to track it and avoid it.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#27

Post by peterbraden »

themagician wrote: post #21
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…

Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones". People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared. RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so m…

Why would this make people turn to DIY kits? DIY drones also have to be registered.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#28

Post by semi-extrinsic »

chroma wrote: post #22
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you've ever tried to run with a backpack or headlamp, you'd know it's a giant pain. Headlamps bounce up and down (no matter what sort of straps you have), often becoming dislodged. It's enough of an annoyance that I don't use a headlamp when running at night. Backpacks also bounce around, and their inertia messes with your running form. If you use a chest strap to secure the pack better, you'll have a harder time…

When I lived closer to work I used to run every day both ways, 12km in total, so 60 km per week. (Nowadays I run with my child in a jogging stroller, so I don't need a backpack, and it's a hilly 8km one way so I don't do it every day.)

Now I always wore a backpack with a chest strap like you said, and I never had a harder time breathing than normally. It wasn't a giant pain. And I didn't have problems with getting the things inside the backpack sweaty. For reference, this is a 13 liter standard cheap daytrip backpack. If you want to get fancy, Salomon do a vest-like backpack that has a good rep in ultrarunner crowd, with literally no bounce whatsoever.

My experience with headlamps is more limited, but have you tried the type with the battery pack not on your head? The key to reducing bounce is reducing sprung weight.

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#29

Post by bigiain »

matheweis wrote: post #7
matheweis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a pilot (although the right $$ would have me there in a an instant... wishful thinking), but I have been flying various remote control aircraft (including so-called "drones", now) for nearly 20 years. A sensible system seems like it would be three tiered: Very small stuff would remain unregulated - obviously there is no concern with things like the CX-10, right? I can't imagine a "drone" of anything near tha…

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…

FWIW, 100g is over 30% of the all-up weight of two of my quadcopters. I think very carefully about tens of grams of additional weight for better GPS or FPV antennas...

Re: US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement

#30

Post by matheweis »

bigiain wrote: post #29
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…

FWIW, 100g is over 30% of the all-up weight of two of my quadcopters. I think very carefully about tens of grams of additional weight for better GPS or FPV antennas...

Sure, which is why I suggested this only for the mid-to-large "classes". I have flown several myself, all the way from the CX-10 ( 3kg range). The high end of that could handle an extra 100g without much fuss. The high end of that is also what the airlines are most worried about.

Granted there is some grey area in the 300-500 size copters, where they are large enough to possibly cause some minor damage to an aircraft, but small enough that the weight of an additional TX would pose an issue.

The registration being proposed by the DOT/FAA isn't going to help with these either; they are quite simply too small for any "tail numbers" to be visible at any distance that matters.

Post reply on HN