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

181–190 of 245 posts

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

#181

Post by Someone1234 »

mikeash wrote: post #102
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…

The minimum altitude is only 500ft when not over congested areas, and helicopters are exempt from minimum altitudes entirely. Your insurance quip is rather ridiculous, unless they've come out with a whole new class of life insurance.

> Your insurance quip is rather ridiculous, unless they've come out with a whole new class of life insurance.

It was a response to the above about the cost of repairs, nobody said anything about someone dying (except you).

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

#182

Post by mikeash »

ubernostrum wrote: post #174
mikeash wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway." This being HN, more likely it's "all regulation is morally evil".

It goes beyond that, there seems to be a need to show that the purported problem doesn't even exist, not just that regulation would be wrong.

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

#183

Post by Someone1234 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #123
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 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. Basical…

But the two don't operate in the same airspace so there's no point. Fixed wings are over 1000 feet, drones are under 1000 feet (and typically under 500 feet).

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

#184

Post by bigiain »

CountSessine wrote: post #172
InclinedPlane wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about airports located within city limits? The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.

How is that different from the externality people choosing to fly in airplanes are dumping on anyone else's use of airspace? Why should _your_ right to fly your Cessna/JetRanger/A380 trump _my_ right to fly a drone/kite/model-rocket?

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

#185

Post by ubernostrum »

mikeash wrote: post #182
ubernostrum wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway." This being HN, more likely it's "all regulation is morally evil".

It goes beyond that, there seems to be a need to show that the purported problem doesn't even exist, not just that regulation would be wrong.

Hand-in-hand, culturally: if there is a problem, it means an unregulated market didn't solve the problem. Since by definition unregulated markets can't have unsolved problems, the problem must exist and protecting the dogma requires demonstrating that the problem is a lie made up by sensationalist media.

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

#186

Post by InclinedPlane »

CountSessine wrote: post #172
InclinedPlane wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about airports located within city limits? The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.

That's why I said "going to". In the future it'll be much easier to hit those people with big fines and/or jail time.

I assumed that was the context of the discussion of this thread.

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

#187

Post by bigiain »

omni wrote: post #157
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't like a moron." People willing to break one aspect of the law are generally willing to break other parts as well.

Sure, but this means you now can't fly in a park or any public space without the risk of a police officer coming by and asking to see your registration. I'm assuming police would be empowered to do that?

I must have missed the bit in the article where they explained how all local cops are going to receive training in "drone inspection" and access to an up-to-date database of registration numbers.

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

#188

Post by ufmace »

I've read a few pages on this, and everything still seems pretty unclear. Does this mean anything airborne, no matter how small and low-power? Exactly what counts as a "drone"? A paper airplane? How about a balsa-wood glider? The little quad-copter toy drones - they're powered, but don't seem like they'd be able to go over 100ft or so.

It seems pretty reasonable to register the ones that can fly reliably over a few hundred feet, out of easy eyesight of the operator, maybe faster than 10-20mph or so, that sort of thing. But I'm a little disturbed by the apparent lack of a lower limit. It may sound absurd to be fined for not registering a paper airplane, but exactly what part of this says explicitly that it's not required? I'd hope we know better than to trust Government agents not to over-reach in ways that go against all common sense.

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

#189

Post by Glyptodon »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #131
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.

Just buy a prepaid with cash and register it to your neighbor. It's really hard.

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

#190

Post by bigiain »

god_bless_texas wrote: post #22
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…

A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield. I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everythin…

And yet people are perfectly happy to assume the risk of birdstrike without grounding every aircraft or needing to regulate or sue birds and bird owners.

Why the hysteria about drones? Does anybody _really_ think xmas drones are going to outnumber birds? What's the real marginal increase in risk for aviation here?

Or is this just a case of "Someone seems to be having fun doing something I don't care for, so I'll invent risk scenarios to justify stopping them from doing it... Because reasons..."?

Post reply on HN