Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

231–240 of 245 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

To be precise, it's not pilots claiming the airspace. There's a Federal law that grants the FAA oversight over all the navigable airspace in the US.

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

The FAA is doing exactly what that law directs and compels them to do. Don't like the law? There's a process to change the laws.

I'm a pilot, and I'm not happy about the proposal to register all drones, but I certainly understand the FAA response to the large increase in drone popularity and increased conflicts between drones and aircraft.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> Where on earth did you read that? Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct? As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones won't be an issue out there.

You can fly over the desert at 1 inch if you want. FAR 91.119.c (subject to the catch-all exception in 91.13)

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aircraft regularly operate below 1,000 feet in urban areas when taking off or landing. Not all airports are in the middle of nowhere! Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.

> Aircraft regularly operate below 1,000 feet in urban areas when taking off or landing. The very first line of what I said is: "If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc)."

And the reason pilots are confused about your argument is that controlled vs uncontrolled airspace is not a useful distinction. In many parts of the US, class G (uncontrolled) airspace extends from the surface to 14,500' MSL.

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How is your average drone different from birds? Non-zero doesn't mean worth mentioning.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How is your average drone different from birds? Non-zero doesn't mean worth mentioning.

Many birds have eyesight and a dive response to approaching aircraft.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is your average drone different from birds? Non-zero doesn't mean worth mentioning.

Many birds have eyesight and a dive response to approaching aircraft.

Most drones have cameras and operators (which also have eyesight).

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many birds have eyesight and a dive response to approaching aircraft.

Most drones have cameras and operators (which also have eyesight).

Great. So we just need the instinctual dive response and we should be good...

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

#238
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

It's worth noting that you register once and then mark each aircraft with your registration number[0]. You don't need to register each aircraft.

0: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/#use

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

#239
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…

While I agree with a good deal of your argument I think a LOT has changed.

I have been flying all manner of R/C planes and helicopters for about thirty years. I have planes that will do 120 MPH with the motor off, weigh in the order of 8 lbs and have a wingspan of 2.4 meters. I have helicopters with 10,000 W power (peak) systems that come in at over 10 lbs. I used to have model turbine jets that could rip across the sky at nearly 200 MPH.

What's the difference?

The difference is that for as long as I can remember no model airplane hobbyist would even think about the idea of flying one of their aircraft anywhere near full scale aircraft, airports, around fire-fighting aircraft, over crowds, around buildings or at altitudes that could represent danger to full scale aircraft.

That is the difference. And it is huge.

The other is the American Modelers Association (modelaircraft.org). I have been a member for over 30 years. Which, among other things, also means I carry a one million dollar insurance policy covering any damage I may cause while flying my aircraft. My teenage son is an AMA member, he too is covered by a one million dollar policy.

In order for this insurance policy to provide coverage the modeler has to abide by AMA rules, which, among other things, requires you to fly at AMA sanctioned club locations. Clubs, just like the one where I fly, are located such that model aircraft activity will not pose danger to people an property. Clubs have rules beyond those of the AMA. We have safety officers, etc.

Oh, yes, the AMA requires you to label your aircraft with your AMA member number, your name and contact information. In other words, you are accountable for what you do.

You also needed training and skill to fly. At most clubs you can't just buy a plane and go flying, you have to be certified by the club instructor or established members or trained and then certified.

In other words, flying R/C aircraft has always had a degree of professionalism, care, consideration, responsibility and enough procedures and rules to not put anyone in danger.

What has changed, then, is that any moron can now buy a flying device that can be flown with almost no skill. As you indicated, it is hard to fly some of these models in windy or gusty situations. And that's not necessarily because of the model. I fly gliders in 50 MPH winds all the time. I fly my R/C helicopters in gusty Santa Ana conditions all the time. There's a dedication to training and skill building that comes with the hobby. Joe Quadcopter couldn't give a shit. He just wants to fly it over the beach and take pictures. He has zero interest in becoming a good pilot.

The manufacturers could not give a crap about how they are used, therefore, they do not educate their customers at all. And, of course, either out of ignorance or lack of caring, Mr. Joe Moron thinks nothing of taking his brand new DJI quadcopter up to 1,000 feet right above a park full of kids, neighborhood homes or the local news helicopter because, well, it's cool, it has a "return home" feature and it is perfectly safe, physics be damned.

So, yeah, if you ask me, those morons need to be identified and they need to be made responsible for their actions. Here's what's going to suck: These morons are the very people who will absolutely, positively NOT register and absolutely, positively NOT have any ID or registration number on the machines they fly. People like me, who have enjoyed the hobby for decades without placing anyone or anything at risk are the ones who end-up paying the price for the morons.

What I find really ironic is that this is EXACTLY, to the letter, the same scenario we have with guns. Law abiding citizens never hurt a sole. Criminals and crazies do. And everyone ends-up paying for it with the exception of those who truly need to be kept away from them.

I am not necessarily bothered by the registration. I am already 100% identified in every single one of my aircraft. If I crash one anywhere, whoever picks it up will have my AMA membership number, name and phone number. So, registering with the FAA is not a big deal. What pisses me of is that, just like guns, this is going to do exactly ZERO to stop the crazies, morons and criminals. Zero.

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Your assertions are extra annoying when they're factually wrong. See FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, it limits your drone, as well as all model aircraft, to 400 feet. You're off by 600 feet.

But thanks for the example of clueless drone advocates, who just want what they want because they want it.

At first I thought the various posts calling some drone operators morons were being harsh. Now I don't.

Post reply on HN