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

191–200 of 245 posts

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

#191

Post by ChuckMcM »

ufmace wrote: post #188

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 h…

Over 9 ounces. So no paper airplanes don't count, nor do the mini-drones that are like 3" on a side.

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

#192

Post by simoncion »

ufmace wrote: post #188

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 h…

So, first, read this sub-thread [0] for a bit of history.

Second, here [1] is a summary of the guidelines from the AMA.

Third, the full FAA rule can be viewed here [2] (PDF warning).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10733635

[1] http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/14/ama-and-t...

[2] http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf

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

#193

Post by bigiain »

commandar wrote: post #70
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…

>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bi…

So there's just under 3000 fewer Canadian Geese than there would have been otherwise?

I wonder what that is as a percentage of the total Canadian Goose population, and the population of large birds generally?

We've recently here had hysterical calls to "cull the sharks!!!" after a few shark attacks. It stinks to me of politically and more likely profit motivations - local politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something" (never mind the pointlessness or futility of their chosen "something"), and politicians friends who can be rewarded with fat government contracts to buy themselves new boats and guns and go playing with them on the public purse, while making a completely insignificant change to the total shark population or the risk of swimming in the ocean.

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

#194

Post by CamperBob2 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #168
CamperBob2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nevertheless, it's not hard to find reports of bird strikes. What are some good case studies of drone strikes that I can review?

As you yourself point out, birds outnumber drones a million to one. So obviously the available number of examples is much smaller. That doesn't, however, change the potential danger.

Perhaps not, but some of us would like to see more than "potential danger" to justify panicked, knee-jerk lawmaking. "Think of the airplanes!" is no better a rationale, in itself, than "Think of the children!" or "B...b...but terrorists!"

Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.

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

#195

Post by bigiain »

loeber wrote: post #17
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…

Suppose a 250g drone fails mid-air, hypothetically at a height of 100m, and falls freely. At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile. Have no illusions about the damage that can be done by small things falling from a great height, or travelling at a high speed in general. The 250g weight is entirely reasonable -- I would actually claim that it is quite generous.

Suppose a skateboard or bicycle falls freely, hypothetically, from the top of Lombard St...

Do we now require registration and quarter million dollar fines for all bicycles and skateboards that weigh more than 250g?

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

#196

Post by ChuckMcM »

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 remember a great quote, "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, then the answers don't matter."

Model airplanes have been a threat to airplanes since they became popular in 1915. Yes, 100 years ago. So why regulate them beyond the existing regulations now? A better question is "What changed?"

Anyone who owns a quad copter of the type they show on various stories about this, knows they are a pain in the ass to fly in high wind environments. Even with 9DOF IMU assisted station keeping a stiff wind will blow them around.

So why now? Why haven't people complained about 1:10 scale jets they fly around at RC plane meetups? Those things are fast and can fly straight through a gust of wind.

This program isn't about "danger to aircraft", this program is entirely about identifying the owner of a R/C model and being able to jail/fine people who don't agree to link their model to their identity. That ownership link is essential in prosecuting the right person when their model photographs something that someone else doesn't want photographed, whether it is a celebrity sunbathing topless in their back yard or police officers beating down protestors. Its about identifying the owner of one of these devices when they are used in the commission of a crime, whether it is unlicensed surveillance or simple burglary. Its about identifying the owner of the R/C model that just crashed into your sports car and scratched the paint.

None if the prosecutions can be cost effective if the perpetrator can argue that it is plausibly not their R/C model. And having hundreds of identical models sold? Sure anyone could have been flying that particular unit as it buzzed your beach house.

This program is about tying people's identities to the R/C models they operate so that they can be prosecuted when they do something that someone else doesn't like with them. It is couched in terms of "safety of aircraft" because that is a narrative that the general public can get their head around, however the risk to aircraft is already "priced into" the existing regulations.

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

#197

Post by omni »

bigiain wrote: post #187
omni wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> drone owners will receive an FAA identification number that they must display on aircraft

How many hours of training do you think it'll take for them to look for and read a sticker?

> access to an up-to-date database of registration numbers.

Cops probably have smartphones, right? http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Serial_Inquiry.aspx

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

#198

Post by mikeash »

Someone1234 wrote: post #181
mikeash wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

We're talking about drones colliding with manned aircraft. The potential for death is part of the context.

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

#199

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Glyptodon wrote: post #189
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can't a credit card processor determine if a card is a prepaid or not? If they're using it as a verification step, they'd probably want to disallow those.

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

#200

Post by function_seven »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #150
wmeredith wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference? [serious]

A drone is not a model aircraft, it is a full-sized aircraft without a provision for a human pilot. They're mostly used by the military (for target practice, aerial surveillance, etc) but more recently they have been put to use for weather research, etc. Drones must already be registered with the FAA. This article does not concern them.

I appreciate your attempt to move the definition back to where it rightfully belongs, but it's too late for that I'm afraid. All R/C aircraft are now "drones". Whether they have autonomous flying capability or not, regardless of size. :(

Oh well...

Post reply on HN