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

91–100 of 245 posts

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

#91

Post by bargl »

Someone1234 wrote: post #62
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…

If a drone is flying within a certain distance from an airport (5 miles I think) or above 400 feet they are breaking regulations... The problem is that if a pilot breaks the rule that have a tail number and might very well die. If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home.

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

#92

Post by revelation »

smackfu wrote: post #18
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…

Here's what the industry task force that came up with the suggested registration requirements said in their report: The Task Force spent considerable time discussing and deliberating about what the appropriate weight threshold should be. While general agreement was ultimately reached on the 250 gram weight, there were Task Force members who believed it was too conservative, as the weight could negatively impact the c…

Nobody cares what color of a bunch of bureaucrats want to paint the bike shed, this needs to be an evidence-guided process not a wank.

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

#93

Post by 1024core »

Is there any verification of the registration? Here's a hypothetical situation: a guy with a drone has a pesky neighbor he doesn't get along with. So he "registers" his drone in the neighbor's name; takes it to a nearby airport and lets it fly around over there and crash. Now the neighbor's in trouble, and has to defend himself from these hefty fines.

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

#94

Post by Qworg »

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…

> You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park

Actually, you do if you'll exceed a certain height or if your rocket engine is larger than H (or perhaps I) class.

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

#95

Post by JustSomeNobody »

peckrob wrote: post #90
Someone1234 wrote: post #30

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? 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

On the internet, there's an exception to everything just one small click away.

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

#97

Post by code4tee »

Someone1234 wrote: post #62
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…

Aircraft regularly operate below 1,000 feet in urban areas when taking off or landing. Not all airports are in the middle of nowhere!

Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.

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

#98

Post by code4tee »

hooo wrote: post #19
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.

No, that's not true at all. Jet engines can typically handle many birds. The AA flight that landed in the Hudson was unique in that it went through a large flock of Canadian geese, which are very large birds. I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.

Birds aren't packed full of lithium ion batteries...

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

#99

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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

That's the problem. If people had only flown at designated places (RC parks ie), this would never have happened.

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

#100

Post by mikeash »

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…

The threat is the whole point. It's perfectly reasonable to carry a big stick hoping that its mere presence will mean you never have to use it.
Post reply on HN