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

81–90 of 245 posts

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

#81

Post by Bedon292 »

strgrd wrote: post #20
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 imagine there will be a new interest in the sub-250 gram FPV community. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sZ-N8YiTs4 And a new interest in dye cut stickers...

I think you are on to something there. I think there will be a whole market around ~240g FPV quads. I want to try and do it now too.

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

#82

Post by god_bless_texas »

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.

You're exactly right.

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

#83

Post by tibbon »

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.

My proposition would be graduated flight limitations. I cannot see any reason to not fly my drone 100 feet in the air 4.5 miles from the airport.

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

#84

Post by chillingeffect »

deathanatos wrote: post #79
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.

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 fro…

> "Chicken gun"[3].

I've also heard it called a "rooster booster" :)

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

#85

Post by DennisP »

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.

Terminal velocity of a 250g aircraft is much slower than terminal velocity of a 250g rock.

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

#86

Post by tomswartz07 »

pc86 wrote: post #60
tomswartz07 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quadcopters ("drones", ugh) are unable to maintain their altitude if there is a power failure. If one or more of the motors fail, it falls like a brick. Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails.

> Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails. Yes, the whole way to the scene of the crash. I'm with you that these two things should be classified and treated very differently, but let's not pretend that if the power dies on a model airplane there's no danger.

You're correct.

Having no power in a model airplane is definitely an issue.

My main point being, however, it's arguably far easier to manuver an airplane after motor failure than a drone/quadcopter.

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

#87

Post by cooper12 »

eykanal wrote: post #68
cooper12 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now that I think about it it does let them take preliminary action before something happens and talk to the owner. So it's not as bad as I thought.

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

#88

Post by sokoloff »

DennisP wrote: post #85
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.

Terminal velocity of a 250g aircraft is much slower than terminal velocity of a 250g rock.

A 250g helicopter with stopped rotors isn't that different from a rock.

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

#89

Post by jnbiche »

afarrell wrote: post #42
nqzero wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm pretty sure that regularly throwing half-pound rocks high in the air is already regulated.

Perhaps in some urban areas, but I seriously doubt there are federal regulations about throwing rock projectiles into the air with no intent to hit or harm a person.

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

#90

Post by peckrob »

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…

> Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem."

If you suck in enough water, it can cause you major problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242

Post reply on HN