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

121–130 of 245 posts

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

#121

Post by LesZedCB »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112
tomswartz07 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a total restriction. You can fly at the airport if you tell ATC and they clear you. Though that specific scenario is unlikely, I've seen emails from hobbyists to ATCs asking permission to fly within the limits and they approved it with certain hight restrictions (below the trees in one case).

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

#122

Post by fluxquanta »

tjohns wrote: post #106
DennisP wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now, model airplane hobbyists who've been doing the same thing for decades can be penalized with "fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years," if they don't realize they have to register their balsa wood RC airplanes.

Rules change. That's why you have organizations like the AMA, who can educate their members. (And you need to be an AMA member to use many of the model aircraft fields, anyway.) And even ignoring that, this topic has been on the national news quite a bit recently.

Knowing model airplane enthusiasts, I bet getting a real registration number that they can put on their models will only add to the fun of making the model as realistic as possible.

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

#123

Post by 6stringmerc »

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 drone operators had to go through even 1/5th the training and regulatory comprehension and code of conduct that licensed pilots have to accomplish in order to occupy shared airspace, this would be a lot more of a simple issue. However, whether it be high powered, unregulated lasers or steadily improving unmanned arial vehicles, people are consistently doing stupid things and putting other people in danger. Basically I think your vitriolic "rules rules rules!" chant directed towards pilots is laughable when the reason we're having this discussion is because drone "pilots" are doing stupid, dangerous shit and you somehow think it's not a problem.

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

#124

Post by ksherlock »

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.

It doesn't surprise me that military pilots aren't afraid of drones. They're not even afraid of flying into a 1000 pound airplane. Maybe if his plane didn't have an ejection seat...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-f...

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

#125

Post by logfromblammo »

delecti wrote: post #63
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…

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, b…

To be extra pedantic, Canada assigns birth nationality by both jus soli and jus sanguinis to the first generation born elsewhere.

So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there.

A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.

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

#126

Post by simoncion »

bargl wrote: post #91
Someone1234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home.

Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs.

Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others.

It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club.

So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, many decades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so.

[0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.

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

#127

Post by forgottenpass »

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…

I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly".

There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."

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

#128

Post by kayfox »

mikeash wrote: post #104
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…

The last time I saw the topic of drones and aircraft collisions on the front page (maybe a week ago), the entire comment thread was filled with people downplaying the dangers, casting doubt on whether it even mattered, saying a three-pound (!) drone wouldn't do any actual damage on impact, etc. I find the community attitude here to be completely insane. Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme h…

I don't think the dangers need to be downplayed.

The incidence does need to be looked at. I think we blame drones for all sorts of things that are not drones these days.

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

#129

Post by thescriptkiddie »

Damn, I thought the model clubs won this debate 50 years ago. What's the excuse this time? Terrorists making remote controlled bombs? Creeps taking aerial photographs? Kids having fun outside instead of doing their homework? Bloggers keep bringing up interference with air traffic, but that's completely irrelevant. Models are required by law to stay under 500 feet, and civil aviation is required to stay above. Even if there was a collision, it would do no more damage than a bird strike. And birds don't know they're supposed to stay away from airports. Kites, model rockets, and laser pointers are all more dangerous to commercial aircraft than model aircraft.

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

#130

Post by sliverstorm »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #129

Damn, I thought the model clubs won this debate 50 years ago. What's the excuse this time? Terrorists making remote controlled bombs? Creeps taking aerial photographs? Kids having fun outside instead of doing their homework? Bloggers keep bringing up interference with air traffic, but that's completely irrelevant. Models are required by law to stay under 500 feet, and civil aviation is required to stay above. Even if…

I gather many drone operators have flagrantly violated the 500 foot flight ceiling.

Perhaps it's more of an issue now because in the days of RC planes operated line-of-sight, you inherently had a tougher time flying high & far than today with live video feed and long range controls.

Post reply on HN