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

201–210 of 245 posts

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

#201

Post by brewdad »

Buttons840 wrote: post #145
yc1010 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now people have to register toys they own.... The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter. Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are not free, especially in "the land of the free" And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long time

I got some family members some $25 dollar quadcopters for Christmas. Nobody in my family is especially interested in RC's of any kind, but for $25 bucks I thought it would be a fun and unexpected gift, and it was a quick impulse buy by me from Amazon. My Christmas morning just went from "here's a fun little gift, lets try it out" to "first we have to figure out the government bureaucracy and register this thing or fa…

There is no way your $25 quadcopter weighs 250g, so they are not affected by these rules. Gift away!

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

#202

Post by bigiain »

DennisP wrote: post #9
tomswartz07 wrote: post #2

The article does not link to the FAA's website. Here's the link to the actual FAA page: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/ It appears that registration opens on 21 Dec, 2015. Further, if registration is done before January 20, 2016 the $5 registration fee will be refunded.

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.

Not just register, but register every single one of them.

I've got 4 or 5 rc gliders in my garage and half a dozen or more kits or collections of parts to build more, as well as 5 quad copters that'd all fall under these rules.

At the height of my slope combat phase, I was probably averaging building 2 or 3 new slope soaring gliders every weekend. And I had friends who were _way_ more prolific than I was.

I wonder just how scalable their new "drone registry" is? It's easy enough to keep track of 747s and A380s, but whatever system they use for that was unlikely to be designed/specced for "webscale" type growth (and given their "$5 is the same price as we charge airliners!" comment, I wouldn't bet against this being exactly the same system/database)

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

#203

Post by eplanit »

yc1010 wrote: post #32
threeseed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that they aren't toys. They are flying blades and we've already seen situations in which they have interfered with lives/property being saved. And if you are so angry at regulation then go and live in China. I would highly recommend Beijing this time of year. Just remember to breath in deep and taste the freedom.

How many people in US have died from gun and car related deaths last year? As compared to "drone strikes"

And there's the combination to be considered[1][2].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

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

#204

Post by CountSessine »

bigiain wrote: post #184
CountSessine wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If these two activities are incompatible, it's going to be because drone pilots refuse to be bound by regulations that pilots observe.

We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will vote in favour of the continuation of general air transportation, which we have had for about 100 years. We'll see how that goes.

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

#205

Post by bigiain »

yc1010 wrote: post #32
threeseed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that they aren't toys. They are flying blades and we've already seen situations in which they have interfered with lives/property being saved. And if you are so angry at regulation then go and live in China. I would highly recommend Beijing this time of year. Just remember to breath in deep and taste the freedom.

How many people in US have died from gun and car related deaths last year? As compared to "drone strikes"

Around 100 people a year die in the US falling off ladders, with another ~35,000 requiring Emergency Department treatment.

(from the table about halfway thru http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm )

Drones are no doubt an emerging area of possible concern, but this heavy handed regulation is pure and simple control via hysteria.

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

#206

Post by bigiain »

CountSessine wrote: post #204
bigiain wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If these two activities are incompatible, it's going to be because drone pilots refuse to be bound by regulations that pilots observe. We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will…

While I get your point of view, I'm not entirely happy with it's assumptions.

1) The "regulations pilots observe" by default give them absolute priority over _all_ airspace without limitation, even though the vast majority of "general air transportation" does not require that. Why is the airspace at 500 feet above my local park "reserved" for "general air transportation"? Sure, maybe once a decade or so a police or news helicopter ventures into that space, but only because they're coming from the assumption that nobody else has any right to be there. I question that assumption.

2) "The general public can decide" has a similar problem. "The general public" couldn't care less whether _my_ choice of potentially dangerous hobby is deemed illegal or not. How many of "the general public" voted in favour of, say, knitters being allowed to carry "potentially dangerous knitting needles" on commercial flights? Are grandmothers a "small entitled minority"? Claiming that public votes for things small groups of people want to be allowed to continue doing are the "right and democratic way" to decide regulations is shortsighted and demonstrates ignorance of the way people are.

I don't claim there are _zero_ risks associated with "drones", but I'd like the discussion and regulation to be a lot more driven by the actual risks and their relative likelyhood and seriousness compared to many other perfectly acceptable things.

There are lots of things that people are regularly injured or killed by: http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

Let's just keep "drones" in perspective, and not kneejerk react to "new things".

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

#207

Post by euyyn »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #196
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…

I don't see why can't one attach a camera to an RC plane. You didn't answer "what changed / why now".

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

#208

Post by paulmd »

wyager wrote: post #119
tomswartz07 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Control surfaces don't lose power just because you don't have enough power left to drive the main motor. Also, non-toy class helicopter models can control rotor pitch, so they can autorotate if they lose power just like the real deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_eliminator_circuit#Rad...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation#Descent_and_landi...

Quadrocopters are, of course, another story. No control surfaces means you're coming down hard.

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

#209

Post by euyyn »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #153
bdamm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any pilot will tell you that birds do most of the work when it comes to collision avoidance. Drones, not so much.

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

Some airports employ hawk trainers to keep the air around the airport clear of birds. Can't do that against drones.

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

#210

Post by bdamm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #194
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Notable this year was the two drones that crashed into the White House, and a whole string of incidents involving drones and airliners landing at JFK:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-ai... http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arr...

etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445

As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system.

But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified.

Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.

Post reply on HN