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

61–70 of 245 posts

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

#61

Post by falcolas »

asift wrote: post #31
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,…

The FAA did not come up with that number. Drone makers and other such organizations did.

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

#62

Post by Someone1234 »

eykanal wrote: post #39

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…

If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc) and below 1,000 feet, and somehow an aircraft and drone collide then it is the aircraft pilot's fault. It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace.

If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined.

Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...

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

#63

Post by delecti »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
omni wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem on your hands.

> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem." It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Where…

I think most people would exclude air and water from "anything getting sucked into a jet turbine". On the other hand, particulates can be a problem depending on scale, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions spewing ash that grounds planes.

Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

rmc wrote: post #37
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

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

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by cooper12 »

eykanal wrote: post #39

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…

How does registration solve the problem of people flying in airspace though? It sounds to me like this would only be used after the fact to find out who was responsible.

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

#66

Post by falcolas »

Glyptodon wrote: post #3

Somehow this really angers me.

Try driving your car or getting into amateur radio. Not only do you have to register, you have to take tests to show your proficiency.

It's a limited space, there have been multiple, highly public incidents; registering via a website and agreeing that you know the basics of how to fly your toy safely is pretty lax compared to what I was expecting to come out of it.

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

#67

Post by eykanal »

Glyptodon wrote: post #58
eykanal wrote: post #39

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…

Because your aircraft is going to routinely buzz residential areas at sub-500-feet and is entitled to do so risk free because it costs a lot of money or something? It's not like drones are risk free - quad copters are like hockey pucks floating in the air and can easily drift or fall. But that said, considering how many of them are in private hands and what most owners actually do with them, the registration requirem…

If I'm following your argument, you're saying, "drones are currently not that powerful, so they should be viewed as a toy." The problem is, that argument is destined to become false. Drones are only getting more and more capable. Intelligent legislation works not only for the current scenario but also future ones.

Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.

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

#68

Post by eykanal »

cooper12 wrote: post #65
eykanal wrote: post #39

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…

How does registration solve the problem of people flying in airspace though? It sounds to me like this would only be used after the fact to find out who was responsible.

It lets you know who's playing in the sandbox, to extend the analogy. You can then use that to require training or stay in touch regarding changes to restricted airspace or whatever.

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

#69

Post by ctdonath »

eykanal wrote: post #39

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…

"drones are a very serious problem for airplanes"

Can we get an elaboration on this? I understand pilots being very skittish about things moving anywhere too close (as in "if I can perceive it, it's too close"), but is there a brighter line between "objectively problematic" vs "hysterically paranoid"? I assume the Parrot Bebop drone I want is over 250g, and don't see the reasoning for registration when I'm not stupid enough to operate it anywhere close (however construed) to a potential manned aircraft flight path.

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

#70

Post by commandar »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
omni wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem on your hands.

> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem." It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Where…

>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat.

You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight.

>PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.

Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York:

>To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-te...

Post reply on HN