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

111–120 of 245 posts

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

#111

Post by sveiss »

ctdonath wrote: post #71
eykanal wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A "near miss" in aviation terms would be anything close enough to potentially compromise safety if anything else went wrong. This tends to be taken very seriously – for example, every such reported incident in the UK is investigated and a report issued – even when the distances involved seem very large for a ‘near miss’. The UK investigative authority cites an example where the aircraft involved were 3 miles apart horizontally, and yet it was still handled as a safety issue ( http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagety... ).

I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant.

The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!

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

#112

Post by Dylan16807 »

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.

That it's a total restriction in those areas is absurd. There's no reason for the space below 40-50 feet to be restricted anywhere.

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

#113

Post by tjohns »

Glyptodon wrote: post #47
tibbon wrote: post #34

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... )…

The 5 mile limit for airports is absurd.

Why do you believe that it's absurd?

I live about 5.5 miles of a small (but busy) airport, and even at that distance airplanes are sometimes flying lower than I'd like for comfort.

If I turned off the 400' altitude restrictions on my quadcopter, I could easily be in their approach path. And not all quadcopters have that feature.

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

#114

Post by click170 »

ctdonath wrote: post #69
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…

I live in Vancouver. Not too long ago we had someone flying their drone in coal harbor quite likely because they didn't realize it was an active airport and float planes take off and land from that exact location.

How sure are you that you know all the relevant things?

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?...

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

#115

Post by wyager »

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…

A plane will smoke a civilian quadcopter every single time.

The only place where pilots should be close enough to the ground to hit a quadcopter are near airports, where quadcopters are already banned.

This is a non-issue. Pilots are complaining about nothing. They did the same thing with lasers a few years back. Civilian diode lasers have such a high divergence that they pose no risk to a pilot more than a few thousand feet off the ground, but pilots kept fear mongering and claiming that we needed to ban lasers everywhere. Again, the only vulnerable locations were airports.

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

#116

Post by jacquesm »

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…

That second video is apparently not of a bird ingestion but of a containment test in case of turbine failure.

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

#117

Post by LesZedCB »

grendelt wrote: post #35

Does this apply to RC planes and helicopters too? Or is this only for the oh-so-scary "drones"?

Yes, it applies to all RC aircraft. The AMA was part of the task force. They were upset that their members (largely fixed wing and heli pilots) would have to register since the AMA is big about informing their members of the rules and safety regulations.

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

#118

Post by jonnycowboy »

Qworg wrote: post #94
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…

> 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.

H or I class rocket engines are definitely not "park rockets".

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

#119

Post by wyager »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #52
wmeredith wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference? [serious]

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.

They could, but they won't, because the control surfaces need power.

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

#120

Post by jacquesm »

Bjartr wrote: post #108
sokoloff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Depends on whether or not the rotors autorotate.

Even if they don't they might cause the body to rotate.
Post reply on HN