New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19 • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by ctdonath » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

eykanal wrote: post #67

Glyptodon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

No results found for "airline drone near miss"

Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss".

But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.

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

#72

Post by Lawtonfogle » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

god_bless_texas wrote: post #22

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…

A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield. I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everythin…

>I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield.

Anyone who owns birds or places bird feeders or bird baths must register.

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

#73

Post by Glyptodon » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

tomswartz07 wrote: post #54

Glyptodon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 5 mile limit for airports is absurd.

I wouldn't say 'absurd', I'd consider it very conservative, however. I think 2.5 miles is plenty, but there could be legitimate reasons that full-size aircraft would be flying near 400 feet near an airport.

It makes lots of parks and open areas in places that people don't think of as being near airports into unintuitive no fly zones. Or take a city like Tucson where nearly everything is within 5 miles of an air force base. Which I'm sure every university student realizes.

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

#74

Post by Lawtonfogle » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

loeber wrote: post #17

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…

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.

>At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile.

So is a bullet. Guess we should require all bullets to be registered.

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

#75

Post by JoblessWonder » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

It seems like a LOT of people here didn't read the actual report. I'm skimming through it, but the most interesting thing in here is that the limits are based on only one line of reasoning: "what would cause death or serious injury due to a UAS (drone) and a person on the ground." They said that there wasn't enough data to support a rule based on anything else.

  "The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based 
  approach to determine an appropriate category of sUAS to 
  recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement.  
  This was based upon the probability of a catastrophic event 
  occurring (i.e., death or serious injury) due to a 
  collision between an sUAS and a person on the ground.  
  Because of the lack of data on UAS-aircraft collisions, 
  engine ingestion, propeller, and rotor impacts by UAS, the 
  probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those 
  events was not part of the consideration.  This approach 
  best satisfied the Task Force’s concerns about safety and 
  provided a minimum weight threshold for registration that 
  is easy to understand and apply and would therefore 
  encourage compliance.  The formula considered was 
  identified to the group as a standard aviation risk 
  assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft 
  safety."

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

#76

Post by ctdonath » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #46

asift wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

Serious question: what is the incentive for the FAA to create regulations for the sake of creating them (or to creating overly conservative ones to the point of impacting industry)? I could understand a new or very small regulatory body, but the FAA isn't going anywhere.

New branch, new area of regulation, more personnel & resources needed to administrate & investigate ... typical self-serving bureaucracy growth incentives. Like with firearms, the governing agency is tasked with regulating anything that can, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as risky.

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

#77

Post by toggle » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #43

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 is the dollar value of the aircraft relevant here?

Million-dollar aircraft tend to have people on them, while $30 drones don't. I think that's what he was getting at.

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

#78

Post by sylvinus » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

omni wrote: post #8

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…

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.

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

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

#79

Post by deathanatos » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

omni wrote: post #8

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…

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.

Jet engine manufacturers run tests, one of which is throwing a chicken at high velocity into the engine. You can find videos[1][2] on YouTube; "bird ingestion test" is what these are called, it seems. (Also, my understanding is that they test with whole chickens, which I hope you're not very likely to run into with an aircraft.)

I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2).

See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTb0QRIt0c

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

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

#80

Post by god_bless_texas » Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #72

god_bless_texas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield. I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everythin…

>I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield. Anyone who owns birds or places bird feeders or bird baths must register.

Don't give them any ideas!