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

New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 245 posts

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#31

Post by asift »

Someone1234 wrote: post #5

What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams. That's well below a weight that could reasonably be considered a danger to aircraft or people. Just for comparison purposes, a McDonald's Big Mac weighs 215-240 grams without wrapper, so with a wrapper if you turned a Big Mac into a drone, it would likely require registration. The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notificatio…

>What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams

Why does this surprise you?

If the assumption is that the FAA is altruistic organization that seeks nothing but the public benefit, I suppose I can see how this is surprising. But if we take a more realistic assumption of what the FAA is--a governmental bureaucracy full of self-interested individuals who pursue their own interests (greater authority, promotions, increased budgets, increased compensation, etc.)--it's not very surprising that they reach beyond "reasonable" restrictions and seek additional ways to benefit themselves.

Also, governmental regulators have strong incentives to be incredibly risk averse. This is best exemplified by the FDA. If they approve a drug that turns out to have an unknown side effect that harms people, this result is easy to observe and likely carries significant consequences for the FDA employees involved. However, if their delay in approving a drug causes 100,000 unnecessary deaths, this result is difficult to observe and likely carries no consequences. This creates perverse incentives that push regulators towards being excessively cautious.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#32

Post by yc1010 »

threeseed wrote: post #15
yc1010 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now people have to register toys they own.... The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter. Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are not free, especially in "the land of the free" And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long time

Except that they aren't toys. They are flying blades and we've already seen situations in which they have interfered with lives/property being saved. And if you are so angry at regulation then go and live in China. I would highly recommend Beijing this time of year. Just remember to breath in deep and taste the freedom.

How many people in US have died from gun and car related deaths last year? As compared to "drone strikes"

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#33

Post by tomswartz07 »

nqzero wrote: post #23

this registration requirement is absurd on many levels, but the pinnacle is that it holds even if you fly only above your own property

A good number of idiots do fly 'only above [their] own property'. The issue is that they fly much higher than 400' above their property.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#34

Post by tibbon »

As someone who enjoys flying drones, I don't mind registration- I just want clarity.

Recently I was going out with some friends to the Boston Harbor Islands. I wanted to take a small Parrot AR drone out there, to fly around 25 feet in the air, to capture some group photos and check out some neat angles of military ruins. Yet, I find things like this (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=1...) on the FAA site that indicates I can't fly anything Class B airspace.

There's stuff about applying for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, which seems needlessly heavy. I find things that say things like, "Community-based guidelines require recreational operators to give notice for flights within 5 statute miles of an airport."

I attempt to contact Logan's tower, and get bounced around between literally 10 different people... all equally confused. It feels really odd to call an airport about this, and I have a sinking feeling that this is a good way to get on some watch list, so I'm quite careful with my words.

Eventually, I get in touch with the Assistant Director Airport Operations Airside who responds that 'Massport does not have jurisdiction of that area and cannot give approval for the use of the drone. That approval must come from the FAA local ATC since the area you are looking to operate the drone in falls within their Airspace.'. I spoke with him on the phone as well, and he was super nice and indicated that he was hoping they'd figure all of this out soon as well, because he owns a drone too.

Sites like this (http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-within-5-m...) make it sound super easy and casual to get permission... but I found the opposite.

Class B airspace covers basically every major city in the US. Additionally, I couldn't fly because all national parks have had a ban since mid-2014... so even if the FAA allowed it, the Boston Harbor Islands (which are technically a national park, through a joint venture with Massachusetts) I couldn't have legally flown.

I am 100% about safety for these things. I think there should be height limitations, but also reasonable allowances. I wouldn't mind if the GPS lock on the drone kept it below 50 feet (treetop level) in places like this.

Anyway, I had to spend a few hours realizing not only that I couldn't fly on the islands, but legally I couldn't fly almost anywhere around here... including my own back yard which is 4.5 miles from Logan.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#36

Post by arbitrage »

cooper12 wrote: post #10

> Failure to register can result in a hefty penalty, including civil fines of up to $27,500 and criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and three years in prison. > "The goal is not to be punitive but to get people into compliance," FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said. These two sentences don't seem to mesh for me. Even if they don't plan to actually prosecute any violators (yet), just the threat of that is r…

Seems to be sort of like the FCC. They generally don't fine you if you're misbehaving, they'll send out warnings first.

If you're an absolute massive jerk, on the other hand ... yeah, you're not going to be on anyone's good side, and you can end up pulling some really massive fines.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#37

Post by rmc »

yc1010 wrote: post #7
Glyptodon wrote: post #3

Somehow this really angers me.

So now people have to register toys they own.... The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter. Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are not free, especially in "the land of the free" And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long time

Yes, registering drones is a brutal oppression that means the west is no longer free.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#38

Post by tomswartz07 »

nqzero wrote: post #25
loeber wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose a 250g drone fails mid-air, hypothetically at a height of 100m, and falls freely. At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile. Have no illusions about the damage that can be done by small things falling from a great height, or travelling at a high speed in general. The 250g weight is entirely reasonable -- I would actually claim that it is quite generous.

guess we should start regulating rocks that weigh more than 250g too then ...

Only if you're flying rocks at over 328 feet in the air.

Re: New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19

#39

Post by eykanal »

The comments here really surprise me. My dad's a pilot, and I've heard from him firsthand how drones are a very serious problem for airplanes. Comments like "this is just one more example of tracking" or "I can't believe I have to do this even if it's only for my house" seem to be said out of anger rather than from serious consideration of the issues with drones. Your $30 drone can very easily cause someone else's $1,000,000 airplane serious damage, and as drones get more sophisticated and more capable the danger will only increase.

I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.

Post reply on HN