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

221–230 of 245 posts

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

#221

Post by ChuckMcM »

yuhong wrote: post #215
ChuckMcM wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be honest, some of the bad things are really that dangerous, like jet engine damage. And while not as dangerous no one for example likes drones with cameras peeking into windows for a long time either and broken glass is even worse. Encouraging accountability like this is a good idea.

Yes, they are that dangerous, and that is why FAA regulations already make it illegal to fly a model airplane around an airport. When Moffett field was an active Navy Base you couldn't fly your kite at Shoreline without getting hassled by the MPs.

Those regulations have been around for a long time and have been effective at keeping planes safe. When people violate them, they do selective enforcement to remind folks the regulations are there. A good example of regulation that succeeds in its goal.

Adding the forced identification thing is the red herring here.

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

#222

Post by protomyth »

niccaluim wrote: post #132
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…

"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.

If you are talking a rural environment then 500 ft isn't the minimum for crop dusters.

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

#223

Post by god_bless_texas »

bigiain wrote: post #219
god_bless_texas wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FAA could write a FAR that kept birds out of the airspace, it would happen.

Sure, but they can't - and it doesn't matter (obviously, because we still all get in airplanes in spite of an identifiable but uncontrollable risk). Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and ev…

I don't disagree with you, but alot of important people were asking the question "Who can stop these things from flying over my back yard?".

The FAA had the jurisdiction.

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

#224

Post by ryanlol »

CountSessine wrote: post #167
ctdonath wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No results found for "airline drone near miss" Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss". But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.

But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot…

Why would a pilot be distracted by a drone?

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

#225

Post by paulddraper »

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…

So when my drone flies through a jet engine and causes $1m of damage, the FAA is going to look at the identification number on my done?

Impressive. Humpty Dumpty should've called these guys.

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

#226

Post by simoncion »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #218
euyyn wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They could (and have), POV cameras in R/C planes have been a thing for a while now. It was just more expensive and so people didn't do it without consideration. It was more complicated to fly an R/C helicopter. (search for 'learn to fly an R/C helicopter' some time :-) ). Now however you can put a camera on a quad-copter (or buy one with one) on an image stabilized mount, and take HD movies of areas you couldn't get…

> It was more complicated to fly an R/C helicopter.

God yes. This is so true. Learning to fly an R/C heli is such a huge time investment. Repairing your R/C heli when you jam parts of it into the ground wasn't cheap, either.

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

#227

Post by paulddraper »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #72
god_bless_texas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield. Anyone who owns birds or places bird feeders or bird baths must register.

And pay $5 per bird.

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

#228

Post by paulddraper »

peter303 wrote: post #24
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…

Force is porportional is the square of velocity. The standard must anticipate FAST drones, not just their weight.

Airplanes have far higher top speeds then drones.

Drones are basically birds when it comes down to this.

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

#229

Post by sokoloff »

ryanlol wrote: post #224
CountSessine wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue. close but no harm done Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot…

Why would a pilot be distracted by a drone?

On my next to last landing at my home airport, I was warned of "remote controlled aircraft" on the final approach path, 1.5 miles from the runway. At that point on a 3* approach path, I'm a little over 400' above the touchdown zone and the land rises slightly in this direction, so I'm a little under 400' above ground.

Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?

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

#230

Post by sokoloff »

Someone1234 wrote: post #180
tjohns wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace. Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction. Also, if an airplane pilot is flying below 1000' AGL, not only do they have a large, highly visible tail number that will identify them... they're also putting their own life at risk. On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly a…

> Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction. They don't have a set "in stone" one like fixed wing aircraft, but if you go buzz a few homes for no reason the FAA will still throw a fine your way. Additionally whirlybirds don't want to operate too low as it substantially reduces their emergency landing sites even with auto-rotation. > On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter…

It's been pointed out elsewhere that your 1000' figure is incorrect.

I'll add that there are many airports inside class G airspace (the formal definition for what people call "uncontrolled airspace").

For approaches to any airport, there is an exemption to the FAR 91.119 minimum altitudes "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".

So by no means does being outside controlled airspace (in class G airspace) and under 1000' keep you separated from aircraft who are following the FARs.

Post reply on HN