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

131–140 of 245 posts

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

#131

Post by ocdtrekkie »

1024core wrote: post #93

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.

Well, you have to pay the registration fee with a credit card. My guess is, they keep enough of that information on file to prove whose card made the payment.

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

#132

Post by niccaluim »

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…

"It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet"

Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.

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

#133

Post by code4tee »

Model airplanes have been around for ages and are generally used by very responsible operators. Local airports and the FAA often have a good working relationship with the local model aircraft club.

The issue with "drones" (which are really just a type of model aircraft) is a wave of irresponsible operators.

The regulators aren't looking to regulate the space because they were bored and looking for something to do. They are looking to regulate the space because there are too many idiots out there causing problems at the moment. If people are going to get upset at someone they should be upset at the people breaking all sorts of existing regulations and causing the FAA to step in to try and get things under control.

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

#134

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

For most people it should be close to a non-issue.

Learn the rules of operating safely, don't be dumb, you'll be fine. If all you do is play with drones recreationally you're not going to run afoul of the rules.

The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high (which isn't easy for a lot of off the shelf drones to start with), or flying in areas where they obviously shouldn't be to start with (rescue situations, controlled airspace, etc.)

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

#135

Post by thescriptkiddie »

sokoloff wrote: post #88
DennisP wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even in the worst case of a quadrotor - which can't glide or autorotate or fly with a missing rotor - a 250g one is not going to become a lethal projectile at terminal velocity. Even the heavy batteries from larger multirotors seem to survive a 100m fall uneventfully, they just make a soft thud when they land. A softball weighs something like 200g and getting hit in the head with one of those at 85 mph doesn't kill you.

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

#137

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

I'm not clear on how these are more dangerous to aircraft than large birds are. The latter probably outnumber drones by a million to one.

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

#138

Post by Florin_Andrei »

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.

Yeah, H class requires level 1 certification from Tripoli or NAR. And for good reason I'd say. I just happened to launch an F-class yesterday - definitely not your kid-friendly little model rocket that you could launch from the baseball field nearby; that things goes far and carries quite a bit of mass. If something goes wrong and it shoots into a person, it could do some damage.

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

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

#139

Post by fryguy »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #86
pc86 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is motor failure that frequent of a failure mode? I feel like complete electric failure (out of range) is much more likely in which case it will still fall like a rock?

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

#140

Post by thrownaway2424 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #130
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.

It also used to be a requirement that you knew how to fly the aircraft, which wasn't much easier than flying a real airplane, and in the case of R/C helicopters was actual harder than flying a full-sized manned helicopter. With the latest multicopters and even some of the electric fixed-wing craft, any moron can keep the thing in the air. Hence the current wave of trouble.
Post reply on HN